From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 20 23:00:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928E3106566B for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:00:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jilles@stack.nl) Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay02.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B3E8FC16 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from turtle.stack.nl (turtle.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::132]) by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EB835A846; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: by turtle.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1677) id 819AC17231; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:00:56 +0200 From: Jilles Tjoelker To: Garrett Cooper Message-ID: <20100620230056.GB4116@stack.nl> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Non-POSIX compliant setpgrp(2) X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:00:58 -0000 On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 02:24:00AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > >    Looks like setpgrp was added to BASE in recent versions of the POSIX spec: > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/setpgrp.html > >    The void argument format contradicts what's in BSD (and Linux), so > > it looks like POSIX isn't compliant with anyone else... > Scratch that. It's just BSD... setpgrp() is under the XSI option and usual FreeBSD policy is to prefer traditional BSD to XSI. Furthermore, the setpgrp() function is marked as obsolescent in the 2008 version of the standard (you are linking to the 2001 version). One of the reasons for this is that the semantics are poorly defined: it is unspecified whether it creates a new session or a new process group. -- Jilles Tjoelker