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

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 2327 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 2327.

Report 2327 Actions

    Problem Report Number 2327
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0645
    Raised 2004-01-30 23:33
    Updated 2004-03-02 16:50
    Published 2004-03-02 16:50
    Product Standard Commands and Utilities V4 (UNIX 03)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSC version 5.2.4A
    Test Identification POSIX.annexA/c99 test 16
    Specification Shell and Utilities Issue 6
    Location in Spec Line 2741 in XCU section
    Problem Summary Tests may testing too strictly
    Problem Text On our system the two failures look like this from the command line:

    $ mkdir c99_16_exe
    $ c99 -o c99_16_exe hello.c
    $ print $?
    0
    $ ls -l c99_16_exe
    total 16
    -rwxr-xr-x 1 vsc0 vscg0 4403 Jan 30 06:49 a.out

    $ mkdir hello.o
    $ c99 hello.c
    $ print $?
    0
    $ ls -l hello.o
    $

    These results are in apparent violation of XCU section 1.7.1.4. But
    SUSv3 allow states this.

    LINE 7241 from the XCU section of SUSv3 TC1 states:

    The utilities in the Shell and Utilities volume of IEEE Std 1003.
    1-2001 that claim conformance to these guidelines shall conform
    completely to these guidelines as if these guidelines contained the
    term ``shall'' instead of ``should''. On some implementations, the
    utilities accept usage in violation of these guidelines for
    backwards-compatibility as well as accepting the required form.

    As our c89 command behaves this way, we think that the our c99 command
    is conforming based the above statement.
    Test Output
    ***********************************************************************
    /tset/POSIX.annexA/c99/c99.ex 16 Failed


    Test Information:
    Assertion #16 (C):
    c99 gave zero exit status when c99_16_exe is a directory
    c99 gave zero exit status when simple1.o is a directory


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

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date 2004-01-30 23:33
    Last Updated 2004-02-03 00:43
    Completed 2004-02-03 00:43
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation Rejected (REJ)
    Review Response The submitter's comments regarding the syntax guidelines are not
    relevant. This implementation of the c99 utility has not violated the
    syntax guidelines. The problem is one of semantics, not of syntax.

    The c99 page in XCU6 states:

    "If the -c option is specified, for all pathname operands of the form
    file.c, the files:

    $(basename pathname .c).o

    shall be created as the result of successful compilation."

    and:

    "If there are no options that prevent link editing (such as -c or -E),
    and all operands compile and link without error, the resulting
    executable file shall be written according to the -o outfile option."

    The requirements of section 1.7.1.4 apply because of these statements,
    not because of the syntax guidelines. Even without 1.7.1.4 it is clear
    that this c99 implementation does not comply with the specification,
    since it has exited with code zero, indicating successful compilation,
    but has not created the output files with the pathnames that the above
    statements say are used if the compilation (and link) succeeds.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date 2004-02-03 00:43
    Last Updated 2004-02-09 19:15
    Completed 2004-02-09 19:15
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion This request is rejected.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority