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

Last update: 10 April,2001

								1003.1-96  #90

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	XXXX
	Topic:			sem_getvalue()
	Relevant Sections:	Page 251 , clause 11.2.8


PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------  
	Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 02:53:28 -0500

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

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

IEEE Std 1003.1-1996 (incorporates 1003.1-1990, 1003.1b-1993, 1003.1c-1995, 1003.1i-1995) (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):

Page 251 , clause 11.2.8

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

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


The description for sem_getvalue() states on lines 362-365:

"If sem is locked, then the value returned by sem_getvalue()
shall be either zero or a negative number whose absolute
value represents the number of processes waiting for the
semaphore at some unspecified call during the call."

Is an implementation that always returns zero when
sem is locked conforming?  

Such an implementation interprets the wording of the specification 
to be that the return value is EITHER   zero 
OR  a negative value ....

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

11  Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):

Yes this is conforming, the intent of the specification
is to permit either implementation - either the one
that always returns zero or the one that indicates the
number of processes waiting on the semaphore.


Proposed note to project editor (not part of this interpretation).

The rationale should be updated to note that this is the intent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Interpretation:
---------------

Yes this is conforming.


Rationale
-------------
As noted in the proposed solution the rationale behind the
current specification should allow both behaviours to be
conforming.

Forwarded to Interpretations group: 3 May 1998
Proposed Interpretation: 17 Jul 1998
Finalised: February 17 1999