.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-1-amd1-93 #11
_____________________________________________________________________________
Defect Report Number: (to be assigned by WG15)
Topic: _POSIX_PRIORITIZED_IO part 3
Relevant Sections: 6.7.1.1
Classification: (to be assigned)
Defect Report:
From: "Frank Prindle" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 08:52:51 +0000
FOR ISO/IEC 9945-1-amd1-1993:
1b3. Subsection 6.7.1.1, Page 153, Lines 733-734:
The statement says "If {_POSIX_PRIORITIZED_IO} is defined, the
implementation shall define for which files I/O prioritization is
supported". The statement, as written, creates an untestable situation.
Is an implementation which defines _POSIX_PRIORITIZED_IO, but defines
no files for which I/O prioritization is supported (i.e. says it is
supported for no files), a conforming implementation? It appears that
if this were allowed, there would be no way to test conformance to
the optional capabilities.
Assuming that the interpretation answers "no" to the above question,
I suggest that the sentence be clarified by also stating that "at least
one implementation-defined file shall support I/O prioritization if
this option is defined".
WG15 response for 9945-1-amd1-1993
------------------------------------
The standard is clear that it is implementation defined as to which, if any,
files support the prioritized I/O option. This is testable by reading the
conformance documentation which shall be provided by a conforming
implementation. It is expected that any strictly conforming application will
be cognizant of the implementation limitations and use that knowledge in the
selection of systems to use.
Rationale
----------
Forwarded to Interp group chair: 5/28/96
Finalised: 6/25/96