Use of the information contained in this unapproved document is at your own risk
.Last update: 30 March,1998
1003.1c-95 #47
_____________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation Number: XXXX
Topic: write and EPIPE
Relevant Sections: 6.4.2.4, page 156, line 323
PASC Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
----------------------------
From: David R. Butenhof
Date: 1997 Oct 17
WG15 Status Block (official use only):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Defect report number: IS9945-1:1996 #1c-47
2 Submitter: IEEE PASC
December 5th 1997
3 Addressed to: JTC1/SC22 /WG15
editor's group on IS 9945-1:1996
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 (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):
1
Error=1 , Omission=2, Clarification=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 References in document (e.g. page, clause, figure, and/or table
numbers):
6.4.2.4, page 156, line 323
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Nature of defect (complete, concise explanation of the perceived
problem):
The description of the EPIPE error return for the write function
specifies, erroneously, that "A SIGPIPE signal shall also be sent
to the process."
The intent of the working group (which is captured in rationale
page 385, line 1055) was that SIGPIPE, a signal directly related
to the synchronous action of a specific thread, should be sent to
the thread (that called write).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Solution proposed by the submitter (optional):
Amend the sentence on page 156 to "A SIGPIPE signal shall also be
sent to the thread."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation response
----------------------------------
The standards states that "A SIGPIPE signal shall also be sent
to the process", however this is a defect in the standard and
concerns have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor.
The interpretation committee believes that the intent of the working
and balloting groups was to require the SIGPIPE signal be sent to
the thread and not the process.
Rationale
-------------
None.
Notes to project editor (not part of this interpretation)
----------------------------------------------------------
Proposed change (as per section 11 above)
Amend the sentence on page 156 to "A SIGPIPE signal shall also be
sent to the thread."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Oct 24 1997
Finalised: December 8th 1997