Austin Group Defect Tracker

Aardvark Mark IV

Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs
  

Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
ID Category Severity Type Date Submitted Last Update
0000369 [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7] System Interfaces Objection Clarification Requested 2011-01-12 10:48 2013-04-16 13:06
Reporter geoffclare View Status public  
Assigned To ajosey
Priority normal Resolution Accepted As Marked  
Status Closed  
Name Geoff Clare
Organization The Open Group
User Reference PR2550
Section setsockopt
Page Number 1889
Line Number 60092
Interp Status Approved
Final Accepted Text See Note: 0000653
Summary 0000369: Can setsockopt() round timeout values to clock resolution?
Description Austin Group Interpretation 1003.1-2001 #119 resulted in an explicit
statement being added to the pthread_setschedparam() description in
the revision: "It is unspecified whether the sched_ss_repl_period and
sched_ss_init_budget values are stored as provided by this function or
are rounded to align with the resolution of the clock being used."

A similar issue has arisen for setsockopt() with the SO_RCVTIMEO
and SO_SNDTIMEO socket options.

Is setsockopt() allowed to round these values to the clock resolution?
If so, an explicit statement like the one for pthread_setschedparam()
should be added.
Desired Action Insert a new sentence between the two sentences in the last paragraph
of the setsockopt() DESCRIPTION:

    If option_name is equal to SO_RCVTIMEO or SO_SNDTIMEO and the
    implementation supports setting the option, it is unspecified
    whether the struct timeval pointed to by option_value is stored
    as provided by this function or is rounded up to align with the
    resolution of the clock being used.
Tags tc1-2008
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0000653)
Don Cragun (manager)
2011-01-20 16:41

 Interpretation response
------------------------

The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor.

Rationale:
-------------
None.

Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation):
-------------------------------------------------------
Make the changes suggested in the Desired Action field.
(0000702)
ajosey (manager)
2011-03-15 14:45

 Interpretation proposed 15 Mar 2011 for final 30 day review
(0000765)
ajosey (manager)
2011-04-26 15:10

 The interpretation is now approved.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare New Issue
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Status New => Under Review
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Assigned To => ajosey
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Name => Geoff Clare
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Organization => The Open Group
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare User Reference => PR2550
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Section => setsockopt
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Page Number => 1889
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Line Number => 60092
2011-01-12 10:48 geoffclare Interp Status => ---
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Interp Status --- => Pending
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Note Added: 0000653
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Status Under Review => Interpretation Required
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Desired Action Updated
2011-01-20 16:41 Don Cragun Tag Attached: tc1-2008
2011-01-20 16:42 Don Cragun Final Accepted Text => See Note: 0000653
2011-03-15 14:45 ajosey Interp Status Pending => Proposed
2011-03-15 14:45 ajosey Note Added: 0000702
2011-04-26 15:10 ajosey Interp Status Proposed => Approved
2011-04-26 15:10 ajosey Note Added: 0000765
2013-04-16 13:06 ajosey Status Interpretation Required => Closed

Mantis 1.1.6[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker