 Relationships |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| Anonymous | Login | 2024-04-20 08:00 UTC |
| 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 | ||
| 0000968 | [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1] System Interfaces | Editorial | Error | 2015-07-06 12:10 | 2015-07-06 15:14 | ||
| Reporter | joerg | View Status | public | ||||
| Assigned To | |||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | Duplicate | ||||
| Status | Closed | ||||||
| Name | Jörg Schilling | ||||||
| Organization | |||||||
| User Reference | |||||||
| Section | exit | ||||||
| Page Number | 790 | ||||||
| Line Number | 26544-26545 | ||||||
| Interp Status | --- | ||||||
| Final Accepted Text | |||||||
| Summary | 0000968: exit incorrectly claims that exit code shall be masked with 0377 | ||||||
| Description |
The call waitid() has been introduced in 1989 with SVr4. SVr4 supports to retrieve the full 32 bits from the exit() call since waitid() was introduced. In other words, the full 32 bit exit value is available since 26 years now and the standard should honor this. Given the fact that POSIX does not intend to modify things but rather describes existing features, it can be seen as a POSIX bug when POSIX claims that the exit code is always masked by 0xFF. Masking is not done in the exit call itself nor in the kernel but in the older wait*() calls. This is related to Bugid: 947 |
||||||
| Desired Action |
Change the text: The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] [Option Start] or any other value, though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, status & 0377) shall be available to a waiting parent process. to: The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] [Option Start] or any other value, though except when using waitid() only the least significant 8 bits (that is, status & 0377) is available to a waiting parent process. |
||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||
| Attached Files | |||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Relationships |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Notes |
|
|
(0002747) geoffclare (manager) 2015-07-06 14:46 |
You already requested this change in 0000597, which was closed as a duplicate of 0000594. |
|
(0002748) joerg (reporter) 2015-07-06 15:00 |
Sorry, I added this because there recently was a comment that the standard requires the exit code to be masked. As it seems that my request was already accepted by accepting the bug 594 from Konrand Schwarz, it seems that this bug could be closed. Being able to read the current revised text of the standard could help to avoid duplicates like this. |
|
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 2015-07-06 12:10 | joerg | New Issue | |
| 2015-07-06 12:10 | joerg | Name | => Jörg Schilling |
| 2015-07-06 12:10 | joerg | Section | => exit |
| 2015-07-06 12:10 | joerg | Page Number | => 790 |
| 2015-07-06 12:10 | joerg | Line Number | => 26544-26545 |
| 2015-07-06 14:46 | geoffclare | Note Added: 0002747 | |
| 2015-07-06 14:47 | geoffclare | Relationship added | duplicate of 0000597 |
| 2015-07-06 15:00 | joerg | Note Added: 0002748 | |
| 2015-07-06 15:14 | geoffclare | Interp Status | => --- |
| 2015-07-06 15:14 | geoffclare | Status | New => Closed |
| 2015-07-06 15:14 | geoffclare | Resolution | Open => Duplicate |
| Mantis 1.1.6[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group |  |
