Defect Report concerning: IEEE Std. 1003.1d-1999
Clause: 3.1.4.2
PASC Interpretation Ref: pasc-1003.1-105
Topic: posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen


This is an unapproved interpretation of PASC 1003.1d-1999.

Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk.

Last update: 10 April,2001


								1003.1d-99  #105

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	XXXX
	Topic:			posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen
	Relevant Sections:	3.1.4.2



PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------  

	Date: 2000 May 18


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 7  Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
    or DIS final text, if applicable): 

Advanced Realtime Extensions: IEEE Std 1003.1d-1999

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 8  Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):

2

Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

 9  References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
    numbers):

3.1.4.2

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

10  Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
    problem):


1003.1d, Section 3.1.4.2 , the description of
posix_spawn_file_actions_addopen does not say whether
the function has to make a copy of the path parameter
or whether it can store the pointer and assume the application
does not destroy or alter the copy of the string.


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

We'd propose similar handling as for attributes to pthread_create()
(but do not have specifics).


------------------------------------------------------------------------ 



Interpretation response
------------------------
The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on
this. This is being referred to the sponsor.

Rationale
-------------
This is an unaddressed issue.
It is recommended that this be addressed in the next revision.



Forwarded to Interpretations group: 21 May 2000
Proposed resolution: 25 July 2000
Finalised interpretation: 29 August 2000