View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000496 | 1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 | System Interfaces | public | 2011-09-29 16:17 | 2019-06-10 08:55 |
| Reporter | geoffclare | Assigned To | ajosey | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | Objection | Type | Clarification Requested |
| Status | Closed | Resolution | Accepted As Marked | ||
| Name | Geoff Clare | ||||
| Organization | The Open Group | ||||
| User Reference | |||||
| Section | 2.3 Error Numbers | ||||
| Page Number | 482 | ||||
| Line Number | 16415 | ||||
| Interp Status | Approved | ||||
| Final Accepted Text | see 0000496:0000982 | ||||
| Summary | 0000496: 2.3 ENOSYS description inconsistent with encrypt() | ||||
| Description | The description of ENOSYS in section 2.3 Error Numbers is: Function not implemented. An attempt was made to use a function that is not available in this implementation. This implies that when a function returns an ENOSYS error, the whole function is not implemented. The description of ENOSYS on the encrypt() page is: The functionality is not supported on this implementation. and the DESCRIPTION section makes it clear that encrypt() can support encoding and not support decoding, setting errno to ENOSYS if decoding is not supported. (The description of ENOSYS on the crypt() and setkey() pages also matches the one on the encrypt() page, even though for them it is the whole function that is supported or not.) | ||||
| Desired Action | Change: Function not implemented. An attempt was made to use a function that is not available in this implementation. to: Functionality not supported. An attempt was made to use a function in a way that is not supported in this implementation. | ||||
| Tags | tc2-2008 | ||||
|
|
As well as the desired action, a change to the <errno.h> page is needed to match. XBD page 236 line 7737 change: [ENOSYS] Function not supported. to: [ENOSYS] Functionality not supported. |
|
|
With this change, what is the difference between [ENOSYS] and [ENOTSUP]? The rationale page (XRAT B.2.3 Error Numbers, page 3505 lines 117932-117936) says that the difference between [ENOSYS] and [ENOTSUP] is that [ENOSYS] means the entire function is not supported and [ENOTSUP] means a part is not supported. Since various implementations have been similarly sloppy (e.g. glibc 2.12 may return [ENOSYS] for specific parameters only such as mq_notify() with SIGEV_THREAD), giving up the illusion of a clear difference may be the right option. The [EOPNOTSUPP] error for object-dependent "not supported" is clearly different and cannot be substituted by [ENOSYS], even though it may have the same number as [ENOTSUP]. |
|
|
Revised proposal that takes into account 0000496:0000978 and also has slightly different wording for ENOSYS that I think is better than my original proposal: Change: Function not implemented. An attempt was made to use a function that is not available in this implementation. to: Functionality not supported. An attempt was made to use optional functionality that is not supported in this implementation. At XBD page 236 line 7737 change: [ENOSYS] Function not supported. to: [ENOSYS] Functionality not supported. At XRAT page 3504 line 117934 change: The return of [ENOSYS] is to be taken to indicate that the function of the interface is not supported at all; the function will always fail with this error code. to: In some earlier versions of this standard, the difference between [ENOTSUP] and [ENOSYS] was that [ENOSYS] indicated that the function was not supported at all. This is no longer the case as [ENOSYS] can also be used to indicate non-support of optional functionality for a function that has some required functionality. (See XSH encrypt().) |
|
|
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): ------------------------------------------------------- Make changes in 0000496:0000979 |
|
|
Interpretation proposed 29 June 2012 for final 45 day review |
|
|
Interpretation approved 30 Aug 2012 |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | New Issue | |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Status | New => Under Review |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Assigned To | => ajosey |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Name | => Geoff Clare |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Organization | => The Open Group |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Section | => 2.3 Error Numbers |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Page Number | => 482 |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Line Number | => 16415 |
| 2011-09-29 16:17 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2011-09-30 15:45 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0000976 | |
| 2011-09-30 20:08 | jilles | Note Added: 0000978 | |
| 2011-10-01 08:16 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0000979 | |
| 2011-10-06 15:58 | eblake | Interp Status | --- => Pending |
| 2011-10-06 15:58 | eblake | Note Added: 0000982 | |
| 2011-10-06 15:58 | eblake | Status | Under Review => Interpretation Required |
| 2011-10-06 15:58 | eblake | Resolution | Open => Accepted As Marked |
| 2011-10-06 16:02 | eblake | Final Accepted Text | => see 0000496:0000982 |
| 2011-10-06 16:04 | eblake | Tag Attached: tc2-2008 | |
| 2012-06-29 16:18 | ajosey | Interp Status | Pending => Proposed |
| 2012-06-29 16:18 | ajosey | Note Added: 0001298 | |
| 2012-08-30 09:10 | ajosey | Interp Status | Proposed => Approved |
| 2012-08-30 09:10 | ajosey | Note Added: 0001339 | |
| 2019-06-10 08:55 | agadmin | Status | Interpretation Required => Closed |
