Re: Defect in XBD 3.393_Thread

[yyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxx]

One place where plausibly useful is if a display driver provided by the implementation uses an explicit interface to indicate a directly addressable buffer region for use by an application, to speed updates, that interface would warrant description somewhere.

Sincerely,
Mark

In a message dated 2003-08-07 10:27:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ajosey@xxxxxx writes:

>   Defect report from : Andrew Josey , The Open Group
>
> (Please direct followup comments direct to austin-group-l@xxxxxx)
>
> @ page 90 line 2884 section 3.393_Thread comment {impldef}
>
> Problem:
>
> Edition of Specification (Year): 2003
>
> Defect code :  3. Clarification required
>
> The text says that 
>
>
> "Anything whose address may be determined by a thread, including but not
> limited to static variables, storage obtained via malloc( ), directly
> addressable storage obtained through implementation-defined functions, and automatic variables, are accessible to all threads in the same process."
>
> Use of the term implementation-defined requires the PCD to document 
> the functions as noted above. Is there benefit to this? Or do
> we really want to say unspecified or do we want to drop that part
> of the sentence?
>
>
> Action:
>
> Change "implementation-defined" to "unspecified"
> or remove "directly...functions"