Tom,
> However, I think the whole patch is pretty useless. That code is not
> broken as it stands, and doesn't appear to really gain anything from
> the proposed change. Why should we risk any portability questions
> when the code isn't going to get either simpler or shorter?
This patch "clears the way" for the proceeding change (2/2). We use the
new inline functions to implement the proper checks to see if the
sigpipe-masking syscalls are needed.
We also need disable_sigpipe to be called when it's not the start of a
block, hence the separate type definition.
Cheers,
Jeremy
