Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0483 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 0483.

Report 0483 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0483
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0102
    Raised 1994-12-15 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Internationalised System Calls and Libraries (XPG4)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite Unknown version N/A
    Test Identification N/A
    Problem Summary PG4R.103 A question has arisen over the meaning of a section of text in the <unistd.h> man page (page 855) of XPG4 System Interface and Headers Version 2 . XPG4 System Interfaces & Headers V2, section <unistd....
    Problem Text

    A question has arisen over the meaning of a section of text in the
    <unistd.h> man page (page 855) of XPG4 System Interface and Headers
    Version 2 .

    XPG4 System Interfaces & Headers V2, section <unistd.h>, states that if
    the value of _XOPEN_XCU_VERSION is set to a value greater than or equal to 4
    (that is, the implementation supports the XCU4 command set), then
    functionality associated with the following symbols is also supported:

    _POSIX2_C_BIND
    _POSIX2_C_VERSION
    _POSIX2_CHAR_TERM
    _POSIX2_LOCALEDEF
    _POSIX2_UPE
    _POSIX2_VERSION

    There has arisen a question over the meaning of the wording of the
    sentence:

    "If the value [of _XOPEN_XCU_VERSION] is greater than or
    equal to 4, the functionality associated with the following symbols
    [given above] is also supported"

    One interpretation is that this text means that if _XOPEN_XCU_VERSION is
    set to
    4 or greater then the features associated with the listed
    feature groups is enabled (i.e. that functionality is mandatory when
    _XOPEN_XCU_VERSION is set to 4 or later).

    Another interpretation is that only the constants need to be defined and may
    be set to -1, to show that the features are not provided when
    _XOPEN_XCU_VERSIONis set to 4 or more.

    Which is the correct interpretation?
    Test Output

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    The second possible interpretation does not seem to take into account
    the previous sentence in the same paragraph which states that
    "_XOPEN_XCU_VERSION is defined as an integer value indicating the version
    of the XCU specification to which the implementation conforms". This
    sentence implies that, when the value is greater than equal to 4, the
    conformance requirements as set out on Page 1 of the XCU specification
    will be met. The XCU specification requires that the implementation
    provides the localedef utility and the user portability utilities option.
    It seems that this requirement prohibits the setting of, at least,
    _POSIX2_LOCALEDEF and _POSIX2_UPE to -1.

    It may be possible for a conforming implementation to leave these
    constants undefined in <unistd.h>. However, such an implementation
    must provide an environment in which a call to sysconf() or the getconf
    utility will produce a value other than -1.

    No Discussion comments in this Review.


    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution No Resolution Given
    Review Conclusion
    It was clearly the intention of the Base WG to require that implementations
    with XCU_VERSION >= 4 be required to provide the interfaces and
    functionality associated with these symbolic constants. We believe that the
    text of the specification is sufficiently clear and that the second
    interpretation proposed above is untenable.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    The first interpretation is agreed to be correct. There is no need for
    a waiver to be applied and this request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority