PASC Interpretation Ref: pasc-2003.1-05
Topic: rename() and PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM


This is an unapproved interpretation of PASC P2003.1-1992.

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

Last update: 04 September,1996


								2003.1-92  #5

	Classification:  Editorial defect

This will be forwarded to the IEEE for incorporation into a future 
errata sheet for the document, as well as an IEEE interpretations
publication, and will be also made available on-line on the IEEE 
SPAsystem.

 _____________________________________________________________________________


	Interpretation Number:	(to be assigned by the IEEE)
	Topic:			rename() and PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM
	Relevant sections:	p202n68/9

Interpretation request
-----------------------

       Page 202, lines 2378-2386:		(PASC ref: 2003.1-93 #5)


	 68(C) If {PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM} is FALSE:"
		   When	the links named	by old and new are on
		   different file systems, then	a call to
		   rename(old, new) returns a value of (int)-1,
		   sets	errno to [EXDEV], and the named	files are
		   not changed.

	 69(C) If {PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM} is not	documented:
		   When	the links named	by old and new are on
		   different file systems, then	a call to
		   rename(old, new) is either successful or returns
		   a value of (int)-1, sets errno to [EXDEV], and
		   the named files are not changed.

Problem:
       These assertions	require	a second file system to	test the
       assertion.  The availability of a second	file system is a
       "testing	constraint".

Action:
       Replace in each assertion above "(C)" with "(PCTS_FS?C:UNTESTED)".
       Also, add to the	"Testing Constraints", Table 1.1, page 9, line 292 
       the entry:
	   "PCTS_FS	  Implementation provides another file system."

IEEE Interpretation for 2003.1-1992
-----------------------------------

The problem and actions statements are accepted as written.
The standard does not completely specify the testing constraints for these
assertions. This is an editorial omission. This will be documented in
an errata for the document and also referred to the
sponsor for clarifying wording in the next amendment, with the suggested
action being the action stated in the original text above.

Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------
None.

 _____________________________________________________________________________