> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:53:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> [...]
>> They should be equivalent - if the other end closes first, you'll get a
>> SIGPIPE, which by default will kill the process. If you want to keep
>> running you have to handle or ignore the signal.
>
> How about if I use MSG_NOSIGNAL in the flags argument?
I don't think I'd do that. Rather, trap only the ones you expect (for
testing *ONLY*), then have it let you know of any other errors handed it.
But don't just let it crash. Consider that other errors might be coming
(SEGV, say).
mark