Report 0015 Actions

---

Problem Report Number	0015
Submitter's Classification	Test Suite problem
State	Resolved
Resolution	Rejected (REJ)
Problem Resolution ID	REJ.PX.0009
Raised	2004-04-16 03:25
Updated	2004-04-19 18:57
Published	2004-04-19 18:57
Product Standard	1003.1-2003 System Interfaces
Certification Program	POSIX Certified by IEEE and The Open Group
Test Suite	VSX-PCTS2003 version 1.0A
Test Identification	/tset/XPG4.os/genuts/getopt/T.getopt 1 Failed
Problem Summary	The test set information table for the getopt test contains many errors
Problem Text	The table used to set up the getopt 1 test contains incorrect values, causing a correctly operating getopt to fail. The table also does not match the table printed in the testing strategy section of the report.
Test Output	********************************************************************** /tset/XPG4.os/genuts/getopt/T.getopt 1 Failed Test Description: When the variable opterr is not set to zero and a call to getopt() is made with optind and the arguments argc, argv, and the option string optstring as per the table below, then getopt() outputs the corresponding information, if any, to standard error and returns the value and sets the variables optind, optarg, and optopt as specified in the corresponding columns of the table. optstring Set of optind optarg Return stderr optopt Arguments In Out '' --fred 1 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset '' -a fred 1 2 Unset ? Diagnostic a '' -a fred 2 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset : --fred 1 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset : -a fred 1 2 Unset ? No O/P a : -a fred 2 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 1 2 Unset a No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 2 3 Unset c No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 3 3 Unset -1 No O/P Unset abcd -ac fred 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset abcd -ac fred N/C 2 Unset c No O/P Unset abcd -ac fred 2 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset abcd -z fred 1 2 Unset ? Diagnostic z abcd -a -- -b 1 2 Unset a No O/P Unset abcd -a -- -b 2 3 Unset -1 No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 1 2 Unset a No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 2 3 Unset c No O/P Unset abcd -a -c fred 3 3 Unset -1 No O/P Unset :abcd -z fred 1 2 Unset ? No O/P z ab:cd:e -a -d opt fred 1 2 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -d opt fred 2 4 opt d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -d opt 2 4 opt d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -dopt fred 2 3 opt d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -dopt 2 3 opt d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -d opt fred 4 4 Unset -1 No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a -d 2 3 Unset ? Diagnostic d ab:cd:e -d -a fred 1 3 -a d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -d-a fred 1 2 -a d No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a opt -d opt2 1 2 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -a opt -d opt2 2 2 Unset -1 No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -abd fred 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -abd fred N/C 2 d b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -abd 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -abd N/C 2 d b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab opt fred 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab opt fred N/C 3 opt b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab opt 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab opt N/C 3 opt b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -ab N/C 2 Unset ? Diagnostic b ab:cd:e -b opt -- fred 1 3 opt b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b opt -- fred 3 4 Unset -1 No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b -- -c fred 1 3 -- b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b -- -c fred 3 4 Unset c No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b '' -c fred 1 3 Null b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b '' -c fred 3 4 Unset c No O/P Unset ab:cd:e -b 'o1 o2' fred 1 3 o1 o2 b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e '-bo1 o2' fred 1 2 o1 o2 b No O/P Unset ab:cd:e '-b o1 o2' fred 1 2 ' o1 o2' b No O/P Unset :ab:cd:e -a -d opt fred 2 4 opt d No O/P Unset :ab:cd:e -a -d opt 2 4 opt d No O/P Unset :ab:cd:e -a -d opt fred 4 4 Unset -1 No O/P Unset :ab:cd:e -a -d 2 3 NULL : No O/P d :ab:cd:e -ab 1 1 Unset a No O/P Unset :ab:cd:e -ab N/C 2 NULL : No O/P b ab: -: -a fred 1 2 Unset ? Diagnostic : :ab: -: -a fred 1 2 Unset : No O/P Unset Test Strategy: PARENT process will CREATE [child process|process pair] CHILD process will REDIRECT standard error to file CALL getopt(targc, targv, optstring) VERIFY that the return value, diagnostics, and variables optind, optarg and optopt are as expected Test Information: getopt() failed when called with :- optstring : [ab:cd:e] arguments : [-a] [-d] optind : [2] getopt() failed on the following :- optind : expected [4], actual [3] getopt() failed when called with :- optstring : [ab:cd:e] arguments : [-ab] optind : [1] getopt() failed on the following :- optind : expected [3], actual [2] getopt() failed when called with :- optstring : [:ab:cd:e] arguments : [-a] [-d] optind : [2] getopt() failed on the following :- optind : expected [4], actual [3] optarg : expected [(null)], actual [opt] getopt() failed when called with :- optstring : [:ab:cd:e] arguments : [-ab] optind : [1] getopt() failed on the following :- optind : expected [3], actual [2]

Review Information

Review Type	TSMA Review
Start Date	2004-04-16 03:25
Last Updated	2004-04-16 18:21
Completed	2004-04-16 18:21
Status	Complete
Review Recommendation	Rejected (REJ)
Review Response	The getopt() results expected by the test are all actually required by the specification. However, the reports of incorrect optind values relate to a very common deviation from the specification for which the test normally gives a Warning result only. The reason this test has reported a Failure instead of a Warning is the incorrect optarg value in the line "optarg : expected [(null)], actual [opt]" This part of the test is for a missing option argument. The specification states the required behaviour as follows: "If the option takes an argument, getopt() shall set the variable optarg to point to the option-argument as follows: 1. If the option was the last character in the string pointed to by an element of argv, then optarg shall contain the next element of argv, and optind shall be incremented by 2. If the resulting value of optind is greater than argc, this indicates a missing option-argument, and getopt() shall return an error indication." It clearly states that optarg must contain the "next element of argv", which in this case is the terminating NULL entry in argv. This implementation has not updated optarg as required - it still has the value from before the getopt() call.




Review Type	SA Review
Start Date	2004-04-16 17:21
Last Updated	2004-04-17 02:49
Completed	2004-04-17 02:49
Status	Complete
Review Resolution	Rejected (REJ)
Review Conclusion	The SA does not find the case for a TSD sufficient as per the TSMA statement

---

Problem Reporting System Options:

• View Report 0015
• List All PRs
• Search Reports
• Submit a new Report
• Copy from Existing Report
• Email the System Administrator
• View the POSIX Certification Interpretations Database User Manual

 

   

Contact the Certification Authority