From ajosey@tamarix.rdg.opengroup.org Wed Feb 17 12:55:51 1999 Received: from mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org (mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA11960 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:55:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ajosey@tamarix.rdg.opengroup.org) Received: by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org; id AA03219; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:56:50 GMT Received: from tamarix.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.189] by mailgate.rdg.opengroup.org via smtpd V1.26 (98/11/23 13:59:56) for ; Wed Feb 17 11:56 GMT 1999 Received: (from ajosey@localhost) by tamarix.rdg.opengroup.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03932; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:50:57 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:50:57 GMT From: Andrew Josey Message-Id: <990217115056.ZM3931@tamarix.rdg.opengroup.org> Reply-To: ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org (Andrew Josey) X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: ajosey@opengroup.org Subject: Finalised PASC 1003.1 Interpretation #88 Cc: stds-pasc-ieee-officers@ieee.org, sc22wg15@dkuug.dk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Andrew Josey From: Andrew Josey, PASC Interpretations Functional Chair Reference: PASC 1003.1-96 #88 Dear Mr. Josey Subject: IEEE Standard 1003.1-1996 Enclosed is the official response for your request for an interpretation of IEEE Standard 1003.1-1990. This response was developed and approved by the members of the 1003.1 Interpretations Committee. To obtain an understanding of the PASC Guidelines for interpretations and their classifications please read http://www.pasc.org/interps/ Please can you confirm receipt of this electronic mail message within ten working days, please carbon copy your response to the IEEE (stds-pasc-ieee-officers@ieee.org) Sincerely, Andrew Josey PASC Functional Chair Interpretations Enclosures Cc: IEEE PASC Officers, SC22 WG15 _____________________________________________________________________________ PASC Interpretation reference 1003.1-96 #88 _____________________________________________________________________________ Interpretation Number: XXXX Topic: PTHREAD_KEYS_MAX Relevant Sections: 2.8.5, 4.8.1.2 PASC Interpretation Request: ---------------------------- From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: Sun Apr 19 09:12:15 BST 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard or DIS final text, if applicable): IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (incorporates 1003.1-1990, 1003.1b-1993, 1003.1c-1995, 1003.1i-1995) (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): p 50, clause 2.8.5, table 2-5, line 1492; p111, clause 4.8.1.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived problem): Q1. How accurate does the value returned by sysconf(_SC_THREAD_KEYS_MAX) have to be? Q2.Should an application be able to utilise the exact number returned ? Q3.Is an implementation allowed to use some keys in its system libraries? Q4.Is an implementation which claimed to provide a maximum of 256 (for example) thread specific data keys but actually could provide only 3 (to pick an extreme case) keys to an application (the rest being used by system libraries, etc) conforming? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional): For all four questions: 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interpretation: --------------- 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 ------------- Forwarded to Interpretations group: 19 Apr 1998 Proposed interpretation: 17 Jul 1998 Finalised: February 17 1999