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

Last update: 20 April,2001

								1003.2-92  #84

 _____________________________________________________________________________

	Interpretation Number:	XXXX
	Topic:			renice -n
	Relevant Sections:	5.24


Interpretation Request: (Defect Report)
-----------------------


Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:08:33 -0500


I request an interpretation of the behaviour of renice as
outlined in IEEE Std 1003.2-1992, section 5.24.

The synopsis of renice indicates that the -n increment option is
optional when using the "non-obsolescent" command line, but
nowhere is the behaviour of renice described when no increment is
provided.  How should renice behave when no increment is
specified?

I recommend that it be made clear that the default increment
value is implementation defined.


IEEE Interpretation for 1003.2-1992
-----------------------------------

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.

Forwarded to Interpretations group: 12 Nov 94
Response received: Feb 10 1995
Proposed Resoln forwarded: 13th Feb 1995
Finalised: March 28th 1995
 _____________________________________________________________________________