| To: | yyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Defect in XSH pthread_attr_getschedparam/pthread_attr_setschedparamALSO pthread_attr_getschedparam and sched.h |
| From: | Dave Butenhof <yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 05 Nov 2004 09:12:36 -0500 |
| Cc: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | HP MSL |
| References: | <200411050655.GAA10572@xoneweb.opengroup.org> |
yyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: Defect report from : Natarajan Krishnaswami , IBMThis is an interesting issue. It's a "POSIX to SUS translation issue", in essence, because POSIX never made the existence of header files conditional. (Until and except for the threads option, there was no attempt or intent to even make interfaces optional; "unimplemented" optional functions simply returned ENOSYS before that. The change in policy for threads was controversial and difficult, and the issues continued to pop up for years.) In fact, I'm not convinced that SUS really intends to mark header file existence as optional. I don't recall any discussion of this before, and can't see any text that clearly documents such an intent. Yes, it's true that the <sched.h> summary page in XBD marks the #include <sched.h> with [PS]. However, the synopsis is documented as showing application USE of the header, not whether the header exists. (It's incorrect in any case, since it's valid and necessary to include <sched.h> under [TPS] or even [THR].) As for moving the schedparam attributes functions out of the base [THR] option into [TPS]; this is an ancient issue that goes way back into the drafts of 1003.1c. They were put there deliberately to support the "common practice" of some form of priority scheduling even on systems that didn't do POSIX priority scheduling. "A standard way to be nonstandard" was a common working group mantra. While I was never quite convinced this made any sense, the (relatively few) strong supporters were unswerving; and nobody else really felt quite strongly enough to pursue the argument. (Note that only the attributes functions, and not the pthread_{s|g}etschedparam functions, were in this category because the feeling was that "everyone" would allow CREATING threads with some sort of priority, but not everyone would necessarily support dynamically changing the priority after creation.) So I agree the synopsis of <sched.h> should be marked THR as well as PS (TPS would be redundant).
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Defect in XBD 4.10 Memory Synchronization [pthread_barrier_wait], Alexander Terekhov |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Defect in XBD 4.10 Memory Synchronization [sem_getvalue], Alexander Terekhov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Defect in XBD 4.10 Memory Synchronization [semop and semctl], Dave Butenhof |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Defect in XBD 4.10, David Hopwood |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |