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

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 0729 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 0729.

Report 0729 Actions

    Problem Report Number 0729
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Temporary Interpretation (TIN)
    Problem Resolution ID TIN.X.0020
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published 1996-01-12 08:00
    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.sdo/make 134
    Specification Commands and Utilities Issue 4 Version 2
    Location in Spec See Problem Text
    Problem Summary TIN4C.00041 This test may fail on implementations because of possible ambiguity in the standard whether the permission bits remain the same or not.
    Problem Text
    This test may fail on implementations because of possible ambiguity
    in the standard whether the permission bits remain the same or not.

    ***********************************************************************
    We feel that since "make" in tp134 is using c89 to write the output file,
    that POSIX 1003.2 A.1.2 line 27 applies, and the test should not require
    that the output file permissions remain unchanged just as was done in c89
    tp17. The test should not fail when an executable output file is produced.

    Contrary to historical practice, the Standard is ambiguous as to whether
    or not the execute permissions will be set on the file created by the c89
    compiler if a file of the same name already exists without execute
    permissions.

    An Interpretation request was submitted to the IEEE raising this ambiguity
    in the IEEE Std 1003.2-1992. Attached please find the request along with
    the acknowledgement received.

    We request that an X/Open temporary waiver be granted subject to the IEEE
    Interpretation resolution.



    ---------------------------------------------------------
    To: Andre Bellotti
    From: Andrew Josey, IEEE PASC VC Interpretations
    Subject: Acknowledgment of PASC 1003.2-92
    Interpretation Request #143


    Dear Sir,

    This is to acknowledge that your interpretation request
    for IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 has been entered into the official
    PASC Interpretations process, and has been assigned the following
    reference information below:


    P1003.2-143


    Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to
    contact me.

    regards
    Andrew


    - ----

    Andrew Josey
    PASC Vice-Chair Interpretations

    Novell USG R&D Europe
    Novell House, London Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 2UY, UK
    Tel: +44 1344 724087 Fax: +44 1344 724050
    Email: andrew@novell.co.uk || andrew@summit.novell.com || a.josey@xopen.co.uk

    On Dec 10, 11:47am in "Interpretation Reque", Andre Bellotti USG/UESG Standards
    Group 462-6092 wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Interpretation Number: xxxx
    > Topic: c89
    > Relevant Sections: 2.9.1.4 and A.1.2
    >
    >
    > Interpretation Request:
    > -----------------------
    >
    > From: Andre Bellotti <aab@unx.dec.com>
    > Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 11:30:00 - 0800
    >
    > Dear Standards Board,
    >
    > I would like to request a formal interpretation concerning
    > the following point in IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 (POSIX.2).
    >
    > Contrary to historical practice, the Standard is ambiguous as to
    > whether or not the execute permissions will be set on the file
    > created by the c89 compiler if a file of the same name already
    > exists without execute permissions.
    >
    >
    > In section A.1.2, page 688, lines 27 through 31 it states:
    >
    > "The executable file shall be created as specified in 2.9.1.4,
    > except that the file permissions shall be set to
    >
    > S_IRWXO|S_IRWXG|S_IRWXU
    >
    > (see 6.6.1.2 in POSIX.1 {8}) and that the bits specified by
    > the umask of the process shall be cleared."
    >
    > This would indicate that in all cases that the file should be
    > created with the permissions as specified. As this is obviously
    > the action desired from an executable file created by a compiler
    > this should be definitive. However an ambiguity arises in the
    > case of an existing file that is being overwritten by the output
    > of the compiler.
    >
    > In section 2.9.1.4, page 93, lines 3390 and 3391 the specification
    > states that:
    >
    > "When a file that does not exist is created, the following
    > POSIX.1 {8} features shall apply unless the utility or
    > function description states otherwise:"
    >
    > Unfortunately in the case of an existing file the modifying language
    > allowing the utility to override the section 2.9.1.4 does not exist;
    > page 93, lines 3404 and 3405 read:
    >
    > "When an attempt is made to create a file that already exists,
    > the action shall depend on the file type:"
    >
    > Without the modifying language the intent of the explicit permissions
    > in the c89 description becomes ambiguous to apply.
    >
    > As it is obvious that the rules that were being referred to by the
    > reference to section 2.9.1.4 were those dealing with files other than
    > regular text files we would recommend that section 2.9.1.4, page 93,
    > line 3409 be changed to read
    >
    > " (2) For regular files, unless the utility or function description
    > states otherwise:"
    >
    > This would eliminate any ambiguity of application of explicit
    > permissions upon existing files that are being overwritten.
    >
    >
    > Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    >
    >-- End of excerpt from Andre Bellotti USG/UESG Standards Group 462-6092

    ***********************************************************************

    Test Output

    **********************************************************************
    Assertion #134 (C): GA11 for the outdated target tf when tf.
    <LC> c exists and there is no single-suffix inference rule
    <LC> for the target .c
    Command failed: '[ X"-rwxr-x---" = X"-rw-r--r--" ]'
    Assertion Result: FAIL
    **********************************************************************

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    Since a POSIX.2 interpretation is in process, a temporary
    interpretation is recommended.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Temporary Interpretation (TIN)
    Review Conclusion
    A Temporary Interpretation is granted.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority