X/Open (The Open Group) Institutional Ballot +44 118 950 8311 x2250 ajosey@rdg.opengroup.org Fax: +44 118 950 0110 P1003.1a/D15 -------------------------------------------------------- @ 2.2 o 1 1 Sect 2.2.2.69 OBJECTION. page 9, line 149+: Problem: Part of the changes promised to resolve Josey Objection 3 was omitted. To complete the changes for PASC Interpretation #52 we need to add text to clause 2.2.2.69. Action: On 1003.1-1990 page 18 clause 2.2.2.69 line 329 , add at the end of the sentence "(see file times update in 3.2.5)". -------------------------------------------------------- @ 2.7 o 2 2 Sect. 2.7.2 OBJECTION. page 14, line 297 Problem: This amendment is supposed to lay the groundwork for future use of the namespace. The changes do not go far enough. Action: Change POSIX.1-1996 Section 2.7.2 lines 1119-1120 from: "Future revisions of this part of ISO/IEC 9945, and other POSIX standards, are likely to use symbols in these same reserved spaces." to "Future revisions of this part of ISO/IEC 9945 shall use the reserved prefixes posix_ , _POSIX_ and POSIX_ for additions into the reserved space." -------------------------------------------------------- @ 2.7 o 3 3 Sect 2.7.2 OBJECTION. page 14, line 297: Problem: Following on on from Objection 2 above, the current proposal for the next revision of POSIX.1 picks up a lot of new functions, symbols, and namespace reservations already defined by the set of documents known as the Single UNIX Specification, Version 2. This amendment should also reserve these namespaces so other grandfathered amendments and the upcoming revision won't have to change the names of these functions when they become part of the formal IEEE and ISO standards. Action: Add the header namespace reservations from XSH5 and XNS5 to the Table on P14, L297, or add a new table with these reservations. The following identifiers are reserved for any use: header prefix suffix complete name in_, inet_ h_, n_, p_, s_ in_, ip_, s_, sin_ dbm_ pd_, ph_, ps_ ss_, sv_, uc_ bi_,ic_,l_,sl_,str_ ipc_ key,pad,seq msg msg rlim_,ru_ sem sem shm sa_, if_, ifc_, ifru_, infu_, ifra_, msg_, cmsg_, l_ f_ fds_,it_,tv_,FD_ iov_ sun_ si_,W[A-Z],P_ uc_, ss_ UL_ ut_ _LVL,_TIME,_PROCESS l_, t_, T_ The following macros with the following prefixes are reserved MM_ FNM_ DBM_ IMPLINK_, IN_, INADDR_, IP_, IPPORT, IPPROTO_, SOCK_ NL_ POLL BUS_, CLD_, FPE, ILL, POLL, SEGV_, SI_, SS_, SV_, TRAP_ FLUSH[A-Z], I_, M_, MUXID_R[A-Z] S_, SND[A-Z], STR LOG_ IPC_ MSG[A-Z], MSG_[A-Z] PRIO_, RLIM_, RLIMIT_, RUSAGE_, SEM_ SHM[A-Z], SHM_[A-Z] AF_, CMSG_, MSG_, PF_, SCM_, SHUT_, SO ST_ FD_, ITIMER_, IOV_ BUS_, CLD_, FPE, ILL, POLL, SEGV_, SI_, SS_, SV_, TRAP_ OPT_, T_, XTI_ Add a new subclause reserving the the names of the functions and symbols defined in XNS5 and XSH5 for future standardization. (The list of functions has not been enumerated but can be supplied if this objection is accepted) -------------------------------------------------------- @ 2.8 o 4 4 Sect 2.8.2 EDITORIAL COMMENT. page 17, line 388-390: Problem: The following changes which appear to be correct and editorial in nature were not addressed in Draft 15. These are in the Mullens.nocommentc objection. In section 2.8.2 p17 line 388 (D15 numbering) additions to table 2-3 delete the "maximum" on the Description of _POSIX_RE_DUP_MAX Action: Change: "The maximum number of repeated occurrences..." to "The number of repeated occurrences..." -------------------------------------------------------- @ 2.8 o 5 5 Sect 2.8.2 EDITORIAL COMMENT. page 18, line 390: Problem: The following changes which appear to be correct and editorial in nature were not addressed in Draft 15. These are in the Mullens.nocommentc objection. In section 2.8.2 p17 line 390 (D15 numbering) table 2-3 delete the "maximum" on the Description of _POSIX_TZNAME_MAX Action: Change "The maximum number of bytes supported..." to "The number of bytes supported..." -------------------------------------------------------- @ 5.5 o 6 6 Sect 5.5.2.2 OBJECTION. page 48, line 280-281: Problem: We object to this change since it did not implement the complete action in X/Open Objection number 16. In particular the proposed addition of the EEXIST error for this case was omitted. This additional error is needed to match historic practise. Also change "a empty directory" to "an empty directory". Action: On page 48, replace lines 280-281 with "If the directory is not an empty directory (see 2.2.2.22), then rmdir() shall fail and set errno to [EEXIST] or [ENOTEMPTY]" -------------------------------------------------------- @ 5.6.7.2 o 7 7 Sect 5.6.7.2 OBJECTION. page 57, line 565-582: Problem: I agree with Gonzalez 9, the text describing the case of a SIGBUS in POSIX 1003.1-1996, 5.6.7.2 lines 1042-1045 was clearer. Now lines 575-577 of D15 are hanging and its not clear what "references to such pages" is referring to. Action: Either Replace 569-571 the sentence starting "The effect of references to discarded pages" with the paragraph on lines 575-577 with the phrase "such references" changed to "reference to discarded pages". OR: delete lines 575-577 ============= End of X/Open ( The Open Group) Institutional Ballot =========== ----- Andrew Josey The Open Group Base WG Chair Apex Plaza,Forbury Road, Email: a.josey@opengroup.org Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel: +44 118 9508311 ext 2250 Fax: +44 118 9500110 OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are trademarks of The Open Group.