Scott Lamb wrote:
> You could just do a pthread_sigmask() before and after the
> pthread_setspecific() to guarantee that no SIGPIPE will arrive on that
> thread in that time. I think it's pretty safe to assume that as long as
> you're not doing a pthread_[gs]etspecific() on that same pthread_key_t,
> it's safe.
Actually, thinking about this a bit more, that might not even be
necessary. Is SIGPIPE-via-(read|write) synchronous or asynchronous?
(I.e., is the SIGPIPE guaranteed to arrive during the offending system
call?) I was thinking not, but maybe yes. I can't seem to find a
straight answer. A lot of documents seem to confuse thread-directed and
synchronous, when they're not quite the same thing. SIGALRM-via-alarm()
is thread-directed but obviously asynchronous.