Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:04:49 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: POSIX compliance issue with mmap(2) Message-ID: <AANLkTinjvQb9xHO1T198Y%2B9g8279PQwnMFdxS7CuNgeq@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19537.46031.343891.856928@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> References: <AANLkTim1Dtn4bkWBtMVWV_2JwxCr0GdxwBXeJHK=td5Z@mail.gmail.com> <19537.40008.156802.846800@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <AANLkTi=q9bF=x=PnackOE%2BcxGPAGqdER3=hWsebCgBBT@mail.gmail.com> <19537.46031.343891.856928@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> w=
rote:
> <<On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:38:59 -0700, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>=
said:
>
>> There are a number of opengroup manpages I've seen use the `shall
>> fail' tort in the ERRORs sections -- some being connect(2), open(2),
>> etc. I'll see if I can get clarification on whether or not there is
>> any wiggle room if it states "shall fail if".
>
> "Shall" is a mandatory requirement; if it were optional, it would say
> "may" instead. =A0(A conformance test has to include at least one test
> for every instance of the word "shall" in the standard.)
According to the Austin Group folks, shall is a very clear term [1]
For an implementation that conforms to POSIX.1-2008, describes a
feature or behavior that is mandatory. An application can rely on the
existence of the feature or behavior.
For an application or user, describes a behavior that is mandatory.
should [1] is a different item entirely.
So mmap(2) needs to be fixed. Shall I create a patch for this?
Thanks,
-Garrett
[1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap01.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinjvQb9xHO1T198Y%2B9g8279PQwnMFdxS7CuNgeq>