|
Viewing Issue Simple Details
[ Jump to Notes ]
|
[ Issue History ]
[ Print ]
|
|
ID |
Category |
Severity |
Type |
Date Submitted |
Last Update |
|
0001124 |
[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7] System Interfaces |
Editorial |
Enhancement Request |
2017-03-05 02:46 |
2018-08-16 15:49 |
|
|
Reporter |
dannyniu |
View Status |
public |
|
|
Assigned To |
ajosey |
|
Priority |
normal |
Resolution |
Rejected |
|
|
Status |
Closed |
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
DannyNiu/NJF |
|
Organization |
|
|
User Reference |
|
|
Section |
System Interfaces - write() |
|
Page Number |
Informative section |
|
Line Number |
Rationales |
|
Interp Status |
--- |
|
Final Accepted Text |
|
|
|
Summary |
0001124: Mention different IO semantics of pipe and FIFO. |
|
Description |
In the rationale section for the write() function, we've taken note of the fact that, some systems allows a write of length zero to indicate end-of-file to the other end of a pipe.
In my opinion, this feature is the by-product of some systems using the message-nondiscard IO semantics for pipe, such as 8th edition we've noted in the text. And I think it's reasonable, that we further note such semantics, by mentioning on such systems, read() from a pipe, will return the content of at most one write() call. |
|
Desired Action |
Add to after the text:
Also, some existing systems ... permit a write of zero bytes ... indicates a successful write of an end-of-file indication.
The following:
On such systems, a read() from a pipe or a FIFO, may return at most the content of one write() call. Applications should not assume the system would provide either semantics unless otherwise configured through implementation-defined method. |
| Tags |
No tags attached. |
|
|
Attached Files |
|
|
|
Relationships 
