| To: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Defect in XSH alarm |
| From: | yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:21:31 +0100 (BST) |
Defect report from : Andrew Josey , The Open Group
(Please direct followup comments direct to yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
@ page 119 line 4375 section alarm comment {impldefined}
Problem:
Edition of Specification (Year): 2003
Defect code : 3. Clarification required
The rationale uses the term "implementation-defined"
in
"In some implementations, including 4.3 BSD, very large values of the seconds
argument are silently rounded down to an implementation-defined maximum value"
I do not think this is inline with the terminology definition
and would be better rephrased as "any implementation-specific maximum value"
perhaps?
Action:
Change from:
"implementation-defined"
To:
"implementation-specific"
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Defect in XSH abort, ajosey |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Defect in XSH basename, ajosey |
| Previous by Thread: | Defect in XSH posix_fadvise(), drepper |
| Next by Thread: | Defect in XSH basename, ajosey |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |