.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-1-90 #73
_____________________________________________________________________________
Topic: ERROR numbers and additional actions
Relevant Sections: 2.4
Defect Report:
-----------------------
From: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com (Mark Brown)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 15:48:03 -0500 (CDT)
This is a request for interpretation of ISO/IEC 9945-1:1990 (IEEE Std
1003.1-1990)
Interpetation Request:
In section 2.4 [Error Numbers], lines 511-526 describe the abilities and
restrictions of implementations regarding error detection. In
particular, implementations "may generate errors included in this clause
under circumstances other than those described in this clause, or may
contain extensions or limitations that prevent some errors from
occurring."
Is it conforming to perform _additional_ actions upon detection of an
error condition described in the Standard? For example, would it be
conforming for an implementation, upon detecting a condition in write()
calling for an error return and errno being set to EFBIG, to _also_ send
a signal to the process?
Many operating systems send a signal to a process performing a write()
after having received an EFBIG for hitting the maximum file size limit.
Is this conforming behavior?
WG15 response for 9945-1:1990 (9945-1-90 #73)
-----------------------------------
Yes, the behavior is conforming, as long as it is described in the
conformance documentation.
Rationale for interpretation:
-----------------------------
The last paragraph of 3.3.1.2 Signal Generation and Delivery states:
An implementation shall document any conditions not specified in
this part of ISO/IEC 9945 under which the implementation generates
signals. (See 1.3.1.2)
This paragraph clearly states that an implementation may generate
signals at times not described in this standard, as long as the
conditions are described in the conformance documentation.
Forwarded to Interpretation group: Aug 29 1995
Resolution forwarded for review: Oct 18 1995
Finalised: Nov 21 1995