From ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Wed Mar 4 15:19:31 1998 Received: from mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org (mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA06108 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:19:27 +0100 Received: by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org; id AA30240; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:21:24 GMT Message-Id: <9803041421.AA30240@mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org> Received: from mailhome [192.153.166.5] by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org via smtpd ; Wed Mar 04 14:21 GMT 1998 Received: by mailhome.rdg.opengroup.org (1.36.108.10/16.2) id AA07397; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:10:55 GMT From: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:10:55 +0000 Reply-To: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Subject: Defect Report concerning: IEEE Std. 1003.1-1990, ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 - C API For the attention of the WG15 Project Editors: Defect Report concerning: IEEE Std. 1003.1-1990, ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 - C API Defect report number: IS9945-1#83 Clause: 4.8.1.3 PASC Interpretation Ref: pasc-1003.1-83 Topic: sysconf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1003.1-90 #83 _____________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation Number: XXXX Topic: sysconf Relevant Sections: 4.8.1.3 Interpretation Request: (Defect Report) ----------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:41:45 -0800 (PST) From: "Philip E. Gustafson" WG15 Status Block: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Defect report number: IS9945-1#83 2 Submitter: IEEE PASC March 4 1998 3 Addressed to: JTC1/SC22 /WG15 editor's group on IS 9945-1 4 WG secretariat: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 Date circulated by WG secretariat: 6 Deadline on response from editor: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard or DIS final text, if applicable): IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (ISO 9945-1:1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required): 3 Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table numbers): 4.8.1.3, p. 112, l. 491 ff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived problem): Dear Interpretations Committee, I would like to request an official binding interpretation of IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (POSIX.1). This request deals with the return value of the sysconf(int name) function when the value of the system variable selected by "name" is not limited by the implementation. Currently the standard says (4.8.1.3, p. 112, l. 491 ff.): If name is an invalid value, sysconf() shall return -1. ... Otherwise, the sysconf() function returns the current variable value on the system. The value returned shall not be more restrictive than the corresponding value described to the application when it was compiled with the implementation's or ... The standard as published does not address the case where the current variable is not limited by or , as is the case for one or more variables in our implementation. The POSIX.1 committee has, however, added the following sentence to section 4.8.1.3 in the latest (D13.2) version of the POSIX.1a draft: If the value corresponding to name has no limit, the sysconf() function shall return a value of -1 without changing errno. This is how our implementation behaves, and we ask the committee to verify that such an implementation is compliant with the standard. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional): Permit behaviour as specified in D13.2 of POSIX.1a draft ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale ------------- None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 Editor's response (any material proposed for processing as a technical corrigendum to, an amendment to, or a commentary on the International Standard or DIS final text is attached separately to this completed report): See interpretation response above ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forwarded to Interpretations group: 4 Jan 1998 Circulated for review: Feb 1 1998 Finalised: March 4 1998 ----- Andrew Josey PASC Functional Chair Interpretations The Open Group Apex Plaza,Forbury Road, Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110 Email: a.josey@opengroup.org