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

Last update: 23 March,1998

                                                                1003.1b-93 #11

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:  (to be assigned by the IEEE)
        Topic:                  _POSIX_PRIORITIZED_IO part 3
        Relevant Sections:      6.7.1.1
        Classification:         (to be assigned)



Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)


From: "Frank Prindle" <prindle@voicenet.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 08:52:51 +0000

FOR IEEE STD 1003.1b-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".

IEEE Interpretation for 1003.1b-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