Comments on P1003.1h/D3.1 SRASS July 1998 Comments prepared: July 1998 Submitter: Andrew Josey ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 3 Line 3-13 Section 2.7.2 POSIX.1 symbols objection Problem: Following the edict on namespace the headers should use the reserved prefixes posix_ POSIX_ _POSIX_ and thus there is no need to reserve any of theses additional prefixes. i.e. admin_ becomes posix_admin_ Action: Since posix_ and POSIX_ are reserved by .1a, Delete the amendment on lines 1-13 Symbols in the draft using the previously reserved prefixes need to be globally updated to use posix_ and POSIX_ as appropriate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 4 Section 2.7.3 objection Problem: Since all functionality added by amendments is optional, we need to amend section 2.7.3 to denote the optionality of certain features being present. Action: Change clause 2.7.3 , POSIX.1-1996 line 146 to: "prototypes or declarations shall appear in the headers listed below. Presence of some prototypes or declarations is dependent on implementation options. Where an implementation option is not supported the prototype or declaration need not be found in the header." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 4 Line 28-34 Section 2.8.2 Minimum Values objection Problem: An amendment cannot add values unconditionally to section 2.8.2, since doing so will require a conforming system to add the values even if it does not support the implementation option. Action: Add into POSIX.1-1996 Clause 2.8.2 after line 1371: "Support for some minimum values is dependent on implementation options. Where an implementation option is not supported the minimum value or values associated with that option need not be found in the header ." New minimum values should be added in a separate table with the title "Table 2-3a - Optional Minimum Values" This should have the same format as per table 2-3 with an additional column to denote the implementation option associated with the minimum value. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 4 Line 38-44 Section 2.8.4 Run-time Invariant Values objection Problem: An amendment cannot add values unconditionally to section 2.8.4, since doing so will require a conforming system to add the values even if it does not support the implementation option. Action: Add into POSIX.1-1996 Clause 2.8.4 after line 1444: "Support for the run-time invariant values in Table 2-5a is dependent on implementation options. Where an implementation option is not supported the run-time invariant value or values associated with that option need not be found in the header , and need not be supported by the sysconf() function. " The optional run-time invariant values should be added in a separate table with the title "Table 2-5a - Optional Run-Time Invariant Values" This should have the same format as per table 2-5 with an additional column to denote the implementation option associated with the value. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 5 Line 3-6 Section 3.1.1.2 Process Creation objection Problem: This clause need to be conditional on the support of the implementation option. Action: Insert on line 3 : "(16) If the XXXX option is supported, then... " (note to editor replace XXXX with the correct option). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 5 Line 9-12 Section 3.1.2.2 Execute a File objection Problem: This clause need to be conditional on the support of the implementation option. Action: Insert on line 9 with the rest of the text in lines 9-12 conditional on that : "If the XXXX option is supported, then... " (note to editor replace XXXX with the correct option). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 5 Section 3.2.1.2 Wait for Process Termination objection Problem: The additional macro needs to be conditional on the support of the implementation option. Action: Add after POSIX.1-1996 section 3.2.1.2 line 405 "If the XXXXX option is supported, then the following macro are provided: WIFCOREDUMPED(stat_val) .... Otherwise: Either the implementation shall support the macro as described above, or they shall not be provided." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 5 Section 3.3.1.3 Signal Actions objection Problem: The additional si_code member needs to be conditional on the support of the implementation option. Action: Add after POSIX.1-1996 section 3.3.1.3 line 818 "If the XXXXX option is supported, then the following si_code value is defined: SI_LOG ... Otherwise: Either the implementation shall support the value of si_code as described above, or it shall not be provided." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 6 Section 3.3.1.3 Signal Actions objection Problem: The additional si_code member needs to be conditional on the support of the implementation option. Action: Change the proposed amendment on line 23 to "...., or if the XXXX option is supported si_code is SI_LOG, then ...." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @ Page 9 Line 0 Section 20.3.1.3 Function Descriptions and returns Problem: This function is defined as requiring a stub. New functions should be optional and should not require stubs. New functions should also not require an ENOSYS error number return. Action: Change the description Otherwise clause on lines 84-86 to "Either the implementation that support the .... function as described above, or the function shall not be provided". Delete lines 98-99 (the ENOSYS error case) This action needs to be repeated globally for the complete draft ------------------------------END OF COMMENTS--------------------------------