Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bu-cs!root From: root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Not checking printf's result causes another news bug Message-ID: <606@bu-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 02:44:25 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.606 Posted: Sat Aug 24 02:44:25 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 13:30:55 EDT References: <11@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1288@eagle.UUCP> <15908@watmath.UUCP> Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Lines: 18 >Re: use SIGUSER, use SSIGNAL (actually don't), use vprintf (tho you >probably don't have it.) [followup by Guy Harris] Ok, maybe it's just late and I'm grumpy, but aren't we being a little distracting here? The point was a much broader one about introducing an interrupt mechanism for alerting a program to I/O errors, something distinctly not in UNIX, likely by choice as the designers were well aware of the IBM SYNAD handling. I wonder if FSIGEOF and FSIGERR should be added to fcntl.h alongside FASYNC to handle these situations, especially where a large piece of software (as noted in the article, most programs that use printf) is suddenly discovered to be deficient in write error handling. I dunno, so much of this stuff seems to reduce to 'you forgot a semi-colon' and the point gets lost, even though I am sure what you said was true. -Barry Shein, Boston University