Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 10 April,2001
1003.1-90 #83
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: XXXX
Topic: sysconf
Relevant Sections: 4.8.1.3
Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
-----------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:41:45 -0800 (PST)
WG15 Status Block:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Defect report number: IS9945-1#83
2 Submitter: IEEE PASC
March 4 1998
3 Addressed to: JTC1/SC22 /WG15
editor's group on IS 9945-1
4 WG secretariat:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Date circulated by WG secretariat:
6 Deadline on response from editor:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Defect Report concerning (number and title of International Standard
or DIS final text, if applicable):
IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (ISO 9945-1:1996)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Qualifier (e.g. error, omission, clarification required):
3
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
4.8.1.3, p. 112, l. 491 ff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
Dear Interpretations Committee,
I would like to request an official binding interpretation of IEEE
Std 1003.1-1996 (POSIX.1). This request deals with the return
value of the sysconf(int name) function when the value of the system
variable selected by "name" is not limited by the implementation.
Currently the standard says (4.8.1.3, p. 112, l. 491 ff.):
If name is an invalid value, sysconf() shall return -1. ...
Otherwise, the sysconf() function returns the current variable
value on the system. The value returned shall not be more restrictive
than the corresponding value described to the application when it was
compiled with the implementation's <limits.h> or <unistd.h> ...
The standard as published does not address the case where the current variable
is not limited by <limits.h> or <unistd.h>, as is the case for one or more
variables in our implementation.
The POSIX.1 committee has, however, added the following sentence to section
4.8.1.3 in the latest (D13.2) version of the POSIX.1a draft:
If the value corresponding to name has no limit, the sysconf() function
shall return a value of -1 without changing errno.
This is how our implementation behaves, and we ask the committee to verify
that such an implementation is compliant with the standard.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
Permit behaviour as specified in D13.2 of POSIX.1a draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------
None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Editor's response (any material proposed for processing as a
technical corrigendum to, an amendment to, or a commentary on the
International Standard or DIS final text is attached separately to
this completed report):
See interpretation response above
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarded to Interpretations group: 4 Jan 1998
Circulated for review: Feb 1 1998
Finalised: March 4 1998