 Relationships |
|
| Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 2010-02-09 16:28 UTC |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs |
| Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||||||
| ID | Category | Severity | Type | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||||||
| 0000076 | [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7] System Interfaces | Comment | Clarification Requested | 2009-06-29 02:36 | 2009-10-09 16:46 | |||||||
| Reporter | msbrown | View Status | public | |||||||||
| Assigned To | ajosey | |||||||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | |||||||||
| Status | Interpretation Required | |||||||||||
| Name | Mark Brown | |||||||||||
| Organization | IBM | |||||||||||
| User Reference | ||||||||||||
| Section | 2.9.5.4 | |||||||||||
| Page Number | 515 | |||||||||||
| Line Number | 17842-17845 | |||||||||||
| Interp Status | Approved | |||||||||||
| Final Accepted Text | Note: 0000131 | |||||||||||
| Summary | 0000076: functions that are defined to be async-cancel safe | |||||||||||
| Description |
_____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 13 mtk.lists:xxxxxxxxx Bug in XSH (async-cancel-safe text) (rdvk# 1) Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:14:48 -0500 (16:14 GMT) ______________________________________________________________________________ Lines 17842 to 17845 of draft 5.1 read as follows: == 2.9.5.4 Async-Cancel Safety The pthread_cancel(), pthread_setcancelstate(), and pthread_setcanceltype() functions are defined to be async-cancel safe. No other functions in this volume of POSIX.1-200x are required to be async-cancel-safe. == But the last sentence above seems to be directly contradicted by lines 62196 to 62197 of the sigwait() spec, which say: == After some consideration, threads were allowed to use semaphores and sem_post() was defined to be async-signal and async-cancel-safe. == And again there seems to be contradictory text in XRAT lines 118498 to 118499: == IEEE Std 1003.1-2001/Cor 1-2002, item XSH/TC1/D6/6 is applied, adding the abort() function to the list of async-cancel-safe functions == |
|||||||||||
| Desired Action |
Not sure, sorry. The above texts seem to be contradictory, but I'm not sure how the contradiction is to be properly resolved. |
|||||||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||||||
| Attached Files | ||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Relationships |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
(0000131) msbrown (manager) 2009-06-29 02:37 edited on: 2009-10-09 16:45 |
Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: ------------- None. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): ------------------------------------------------------- In sigwait() RATIONALE > == > After some consideration, threads were allowed to use semaphores > and sem_post() was defined to be async-signal and async-cancel-safe. > == Remove the words " and async-cancel", so that the resulting text ends up with: "...was defined to be async-signal-safe." This problem seems to date back to the original .1c threads standard. At least, the same rationale appears in POSIX.1-1996 in section B.11.4.3 (Page 527 Line 6994). > And again there seems to be contradictory text in XRAT lines 118498 to > 118499: > > == > IEEE Std 1003.1-2001/Cor 1-2002, item XSH/TC1/D6/6 is applied, adding the > abort() function to the list of async-cancel-safe functions > == Change "async-cancel-safe functions" to "async-signal-safe functions" This one is a mistake in the wording of 1003.1-2001/Cor 1-2002, item XSH/TC1/D6/6. It added abort() to the table of async-signal-safe functions in 2.4.3, but somehow the word "cancel" got into the description of the change instead of "signal". |
|
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | New Issue | |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Status | New => Under Review |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Assigned To | => ajosey |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Name | => Mark Brown |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Organization | => IBM |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Section | => 2.9.5.4 |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Page Number | => 515 |
| 2009-06-29 02:36 | msbrown | Line Number | => 17842-17845 |
| 2009-06-29 02:37 | msbrown | Note Added: 0000131 | |
| 2009-06-29 02:37 | msbrown | Final Accepted Text | => Note: 0000131 |
| 2009-06-29 02:37 | msbrown | Status | Under Review => Resolved |
| 2009-06-29 02:37 | msbrown | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2009-08-06 15:35 | ajosey | Note Added: 0000176 | |
| 2009-08-06 15:35 | ajosey | Status | Resolved => Interpretation Required |
| 2009-08-11 16:32 | Don Cragun | Interp Status | => Pending |
| 2009-09-17 06:53 | tahonermann | Issue Monitored: tahonermann | |
| 2009-09-17 15:41 | nick | Interp Status | Pending => Proposed |
| 2009-10-09 16:45 | ajosey | Note Edited: 0000131 | |
| 2009-10-09 16:46 | ajosey | Note Deleted: 0000176 | |
| 2009-10-09 16:46 | ajosey | Interp Status | Proposed => Approved |
| Mantis 1.1.6[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group |  |
