home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 11:53:25 EST
- From: Dan Franklin <dan@BBN-PROPHET.ARPA>
-
- Re EFAULT from time(), etc.: The System V Interface Definition says (p. 136)
- that "time will fail and its actions are undefined if tloc points to an
- invalid address" as opposed to other system calls where the SVID explicitly
- says they will return EFAULT. So it seems that it would not be deviating too
- much from AT&T's Unix line to permit some system calls to get SIGSEGV given
- an invalid pointer. It certainly seems the most sensible course to me.
-
- I suspect that the discrepancy between the SVID and the SVr2 manual occurs
- because the SVr2 code doesn't implement what the SVr2 manual says, and the
- SVID makes SVr2's behavior legitimate.
-
- Re limits: it really is much more sensible to determine the limits in a way
- which permits a vendor to supply them at run time rather than compile time.
- While I don't want to get into an argument over whether the standard ought to
- address binary compatibility or not, it seems to me that it should certainly
- not PRECLUDE a vendor from offering binary compatibility across changes in
- some system "constants". OPEN_MAX is a particularly good example of a
- "constant" that is likely to change over the next few years; I know of several
- database-producing groups that can't stand the limit of 20 open descriptors,
- and it's not particularly wonderful for the project I'm on now, either.
- It is true that this will mean that (e.g.) an array of flags will have to be
- allocated dynamically rather than statically if it is to be done correctly;
- I don't see this as a serious disadvantage.
-
- Dan Franklin
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 3, Number 16
-
-