Defect Report concerning: IEEE Std. 1003.1d-1999
Clause: 16.2.1.2
PASC Interpretation Ref: pasc-1003.1-107
Topic: pthread_attr_init


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  #107

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	XXXX
	Topic:			pthread_attr_init
	Relevant Sections:	16.2.1.2



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): 

Threads Extensions: IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995

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

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

1

Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3

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

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

16.2.1.2, page 334, pthread_attr_init

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

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


1003.1-1996, Section 16.2.1.2 is not clear whether its permissible
to reinitialize an already initialized thread attributes object.
It would seem clear from the presence of the destroy
operation that such an action should result in undefined behavior
but needs stating here.

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

11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

Add "The effect of initializing an already initialized thread
attributes object is undefined" (after line 38, page 334)


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



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, which is recommended be addressed in the
1003.1 revision.



Notes to the project editor (not part of this interpretation):
---------------------------------------------------------------

Apply the change proposed in section 11 to the 1003.1 revision.

Forwarded to Interpretations group: 21 May 2000
Proposed resolution: 28 May 2000
Finalised Interpretation: 25 July 2000