Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:12:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Current List <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: FIO* doc added to tty.4 (review) Message-ID: <200104172112.RAA15784@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104180626350.12270-100000@besplex.bde.org> References: <200104171817.OAA13546@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104180626350.12270-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:40:38 +1000 (EST), Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> said: > Does POSIX now specify select() and/or poll() precisely enough to > show that the current behaviour is wrong? In addition to more explicit requirements for sockets, draft 6 has the following to say about select() and pselect(): A descriptor shall be considered ready for reading when a call to an input function with O_NONBLOCK clear would not block, whether or not the function would transfer data successfully. (The function might return data, an end-of-file indication, or an error other than one indicating that it is blocked, and in each of these cases the descriptor shall be considered ready for reading.) The socket semantic requirements come from 1003.1g-2000; this paragraph looks to have come from XSH4.2 (SUSv1). -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104172112.RAA15784>