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

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0584 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 0584.

Report 0584 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0584
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0188
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V2 (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 4.1.5
    Test Identification POSIX.annexC/fort77 10 31 60 67 68
    Problem Summary PG4C.00088 The request claims the test incorrectly leaves the arguments off the -L and -O options.
    Problem Text
    (1)About test #10
    A syntax of "fort77" is defined as following in SYNOPSIS of "XPG4 Commands
    and Utilities V2":
    fort77 [-c] [-g] [-L directory]...[-O optlevel] [-o outfile] [-s] [-w]
    operand...

    We believe that we can't omit "directory" after -L, "optlevel" after -O
    and "outfile" after -o dependently above-mentioned syntax, we made and
    release "fort77" command that checks as an error for the omission.
    (If we are able to omit "directory","optlevel" and "outfile", we believe
    that the syntax must be defined as "[-L [directory]]", "[-O [optlevel]]"
    and "[-o [outfile]]".)

    But, because test shell runs as following, fort77 that we released checks
    a syntax error and becomes Fail:
    fort77 fort77_in_10_1.f -L > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR
    fort77 fort77_in_10_1.f -O > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR
    fort77 fort77_in_10_1.f -o > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR

    We believe there are errors in test #10.

    (2)About test #31
    The archive file "libMBI.a" (includes the object file that is referenced
    from the main program) is specified before the main program. As following:
    ga62 fort77_dir_34_1/libMBI.a 0 fort77 -L fort77_dir_34_1/ -l MBI fort77_in_34_1.f > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR

    An actual command image is following:
    fort77 -L fort77_dir_34_1/ -l MBI fort77_in_34_1.f > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR

    Because general LINKER process reference-and-definition of external symbol
    name in order of command line specification, we believe that general LINKER
    can't process above-mentioned archive file name and source file name order.

    We believe there are errors in test #31, and we believe that following
    command image is correct.

    fort77 -L fort77_dir_34_1/ fort77_in_34_1.f -l MBI

    (3)About test #60
    A library without external symbols is specified in command line.

    a)making of ar_dummy
    fort77_startup(){
    # Create an arbitrary file to use with ar in initializing archives
    echo "This is not an object file" > ar_dummy
    } # End startup

    ----> "ar_dummy" does not have any external symbol.

    b)making of libt.a (in tp60() of fort77.sh)
    ar -rc libt.a ar_dummy

    c)running of fort77
    fort77 -L . -l t fort77_in_60_1.f > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR

    We believe that general LINKER expect that some libraries include
    external symbols are specified in a command line.

    We believe there are errors in test #60.

    (4)About test #67 and #68
    These tests try linking two main programs.
    General LINKER handle it an error for linking plural main programs.

    The case of test #67:

    a)making of fort77_in_67_1.f
    printf "\tPROGRAM FUN\n" > fort77_in_67_1.f -> This is a main program.
    :
    printf "\tEND\n" >> fort77_in_67_1.f
    :
    i=1
    while [ $i -lt 512 ]
    do
    printf "\tSUBROUTINE A$i\n"
    printf "\tEND\n"
    i=$(expr $i + 1)
    done >> fort77_in_67_1.f

    b)making of fort77_in_67_2.f
    printf "\tPROGRAM FUN2\n" > fort77_in_67_2.f -> This is a main program.
    :
    i=1
    while [ $i -lt 512 ]
    do
    printf "\tCALL A$i\n"
    i=$(expr $i + 1)
    done >> fort77_in_67_2.f
    printf "\tEND\n" >> fort77_in_67_2.f

    c)running of fort77
    fort77 fort77_in_67_1.f fort77_in_67_2.f > $CT_STDOUT 2> $CT_STDERR
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Two main programs are specified

    We believe there are errors in test #67 and #68.
    Test Output
    - --------- fort77

    #10
    Assertion #10 (C): GA27
    Expected exit code != 0; Received 0
    Standard output isn't empty
    Contents of out.stdout:
    fort77 error : optlevel is not specified
    Command failed: 'test -s out.stderr'
    Standard output isn't empty
    Contents of out.stdout:
    fort77 error : outfile is not specified
    Command failed: 'test -s out.stderr'

    #31
    Assertion #31 (C): -L sets the lib search path
    Command failed: 'fort77 -L . -l MBI fort77_in_31_3.f'

    #60
    Assertion #60 (C): -l LIB seraches libLIB.a
    Expected exit code = 0; Received 1
    Standard output isn't the same as file 'fort77_out_60_1'
    diff of "out.stdout" and "fort77_out_60_1":
    *** out.stdout Fri Jun 14 15:02:57 JST 1996
    --- fort77_out_60_1 Fri Jun 14 15:02:57 JST 1996
    ***************
    *** 0 ****
    --- 1 ----
    + libt.a

    #67
    Assertion #67 (C): 511 external symbols per file
    Expected exit code = 0; Received 1
    Command failed: 'test -x a.out'

    #68
    Assertion #68 (C): 4096 external symbols total
    Expected exit code = 0; Received 1
    Command failed: 'test -x a.out'

    - -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Failed Unresolved Uninitiated Unsupported

    asa 804
    asa 805
    asa 820
    fort77 10 fort77 31 fort77 26
    fort77 11 fort77 55
    fort77 60
    fort77 67
    fort77 68

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    We recommend this request be refused.

    fort77 test 10 verifys

    1. when -L is used with directory omitted then fort77 prints
    an error to standard error, prints nothing to standard out
    and exits with a non-zero status

    The test results show that the system being tested
    writes the error message to standard out instead of
    standard error and does not exit with an error code.

    2. when -O is used with optlevel omitted then fort77 prints
    an error to standard error, prints nothing to standard out
    and exits with a non-zero status

    The test results show that the system being tested
    writes the error message to standard out instead of
    standard error and does not exit with an error code.


    We agree that fort77 test 31 has the bug the submitter claims. If the
    submitter sends in a separate interpretation request for this
    failure we will recommend a waiver.

    We agree that fort77 test 60 has the bug the submitter claims. If the
    submitter sends in a separate interpretation request for this
    failure we will recommend a waiver.

    The submitter is correct with regards to tests 67 and 68 but a
    recent ruling regarding this issue exists. To avoid the
    confusion duplicate rulings regarding the same issue might cause
    we recommend this request be refused and the submitter use
    TSD4C.00122 instead.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution No Resolution Given
    Review Conclusion
    Please take note of the consultant's recommendation to send in another
    request.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    This request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority