Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:01:03 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: POSIX compliance issue with mmap(2) Message-ID: <19537.46031.343891.856928@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=q9bF=x=PnackOE%2BcxGPAGqdER3=hWsebCgBBT@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTim1Dtn4bkWBtMVWV_2JwxCr0GdxwBXeJHK=td5Z@mail.gmail.com> <19537.40008.156802.846800@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> <AANLkTi=q9bF=x=PnackOE%2BcxGPAGqdER3=hWsebCgBBT@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<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. (A conformance test has to include at least one test for every instance of the word "shall" in the standard.) If there are other examples of "shall fail" errors that you think should be "may fail" errors instead, you should bring them up on the Austin Group mailing-list. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19537.46031.343891.856928>