Source code of Windows XP (NT5)
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
 
 
 
 

161 lines
6.8 KiB

IEEE 1003.3 Recirculation Ballot
March 20, 1990
To: Computer Society Secritariat
iEEE Standards Office
ATTN: P1003.1a Ballot (Bob Pritchard)
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08855-133
I DO NOT approve as a full use standard 1003.3/D11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I Section(s) 7-8 Page(s) 24-26 Line(s) 447-501
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Test result code of UNRESOLVED is too restrictive. Lines 463-464
require that UNRESOLVED test result codes shall resolve to one of
the other test codes before a statement of compliance is made.
For a (B) assertion, this means that UNRESOLVED must go to PASS, or
UNTESTED. Since UNTESTED and UNRESOLVED contridict each other,
UNRESOLVEs must resolve to PASS. This is not acceptible since a
test can result in UNRESOLVE because "Setup for the assertion test
failed".
If a PCTS requires target system support facilities to setup for a
test, and the facilities do not exist, then using the above
rational, the assertion test can go to UNRESOLVE. In this
situation, the only way to get a statement of complience is to
implement system support facilities, retest, and get a PASS. This
is to restrictive.
Required Action:
Add a test result code of UNTESTABLE with the following definition:
UNTESTABLE - An assertion test resulted in an UNRESOLVED test result
code. After careful examinition, it is discovered that the test
can not be resolved to PASS because the system being tested
lacks optional target system support facilities that would
be required to setup for the assertion test.
In the chart on page 26, add the UNTESTABLE test result code to all
cells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 3.1.2.2 Page(s) 37 Line(s) 258-262
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertions 30 and 31 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
portable way of creating an executable file with either the S_ISUID,
or S_ISGID mode bits set, defining these as (A) assertions is
inappropriate.
Required Action:
Change assertions 30 and 31 to (B) or (D) assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 4.2.3.2-4.2.3.4 Page(s) 85-86 Line(s) 214-240
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertions 3, 4, 6 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
portable way of modifying a process' list of supplementary group
ID's, testing the information returned by this call is questionable
if _SC_NGROUPS_MAX is greater than zero. Since there is no portable
way to set the number of supplementary group id's in a process,
verifying that the information returned by getgroups() is correct
can not be done portably.
Required Action:
Change assertions 3, 4, and 6 to (B) or (D) assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 4.7.1.2 Page(s) 101 Line(s) 621-624
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertions 3 and 4 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
portable way of establishing the controlling terminal for a process,
there is no way to verify the correctness of this function.
Required Action:
Change assertions 3 and 4 to (B) or (D) assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 5.1.2.2 Page(s) 110 Line(s) 104-105
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertion 8 is classified incorrectly. Since there is no portable
way of causing the underlying directory to be read, there is no way
to test when the st_atime field of the directory should be marked
for update.
Required Action:
Change assertion 8 (B) or (D) assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 5.4.1.4 Page(s) 134 Line(s) 765-768
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertion 14 is based on an incorrect assumption. This assertion is
based on the assumption that creating a directory causes the link
count of the parent directory to be incremented. This is not always
the case, and is certainly not required POSIX.1 functionality. The
link count bias occurs in UNIX systems due to the ".." entry created
in the new directory. Implementations that support the ".."
concept, but that do not actually create an entry for ".." do not
cause the link count of the parent directory to be incremented. The
description of readdir() allows for directories that contain no
entry for "..", and therefore do not cause the link count in the
parent directory to be incremented.
Required Action:
Change assertion 14 to 14(C) and make it read as follows:
If {_POSIX_LINK_MAX} <= {LINK_MAX} <= {PCTS_LINK_MAX} and if
creating a directory causes the link count of the directory in which
path1 is to be created to be incremented:
When {LINK_MAX} links to the directory in which path1 is to be
created already exist, then a call to mkdir(path1,mode) returns
a value of ((int)-1), sets errno to [EMLINK], and no directory
is created.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II Section(s) 5.6.1.1 Page(s) 149 Line(s) 1232-1237
Balloter: Gregory W. Goddard (206) 867-3629 ...!uunet!microsoft!markl
Identification: XXXX
Position on Submittal: OBJECTION
Assertions 4 and 5 are classified incorrectly. Since there is no
portable way of creating a character special file or a block special
file, there is no portable way to test these assertions.
Required Action:
Change assertions 4 and 5 to (B) or (D) assertions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------