Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #378Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.1: System services interface
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 21:07
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 21:07
24 lines
1641 bytes
1641 bytes
From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil> In article <9951@cs.utexas.edu> std-unix@uunet.uu.net writes: >From: Jason Zions <jason@cnd.hp.com> >Worse yet, it appears that one of the POSIX Real Time Profiles may very >well require only a subset of 1003.1; how on earth does one represent >*that* using the _POSIX_C_SOURCE scheme? Shouldn't 1003.0 step in here and exert some coordination? 1003.1 was deliberately not split into "levels" a la COBOL, and we meant it. A Real-Time extension could very well exist (say, number 1003.123a) and not require that 1003.1 be specified, but be useless in the absence of some subset of 1003.1 or equivalent, just as a hosted C implementation on UNIX does not specify that open() exist, but secretly requires a function with similar properties in order to be implemented at all. If the problem is that the extension wants to contradict some of 1003.1, then it is an INCOMPATIBLE standard (i.e. one could not specify simultaneous conformance with 1003.1 and 1003.123a), and I thought that standards organizations prohibited that. Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 126
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<10061@cs.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!jbcReferences:
<9951@cs.utexas.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!jbc From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.1: System services interface Message-ID: <10061@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 12 Jul 90 21:07:17 GMT References: <9951@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: jbc@cs.utexas.edu Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 24 Approved: jbc@cs.utexas.edu (Guest Moderator, John B. Chambers)