.
Last update: 1997-05-20
13210-92 #5
Classification: Editorial defect
_____________________________________________________________________________
Topic: rename() and PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM
Relevant sections: p202n68/9
Interpretation request
-----------------------
Page 202, lines 2378-2386: (WG15 ref: 13210-93 #5)
68(C) If {PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM} is FALSE:"
When the links named by old and new are on
different file systems, then a call to
rename(old, new) returns a value of (int)-1,
sets errno to [EXDEV], and the named files are
not changed.
69(C) If {PCD_LINK_FILE_SYSTEM} is not documented:
When the links named by old and new are on
different file systems, then a call to
rename(old, new) is either successful or returns
a value of (int)-1, sets errno to [EXDEV], and
the named files are not changed.
Problem:
These assertions require a second file system to test the
assertion. The availability of a second file system is a
"testing constraint".
Action:
Replace in each assertion above "(C)" with "(PCTS_FS?C:UNTESTED)".
Also, add to the "Testing Constraints", Table 1.1, page 9, line 292
the entry:
"PCTS_FS Implementation provides another file system."
WG15 response for 13210:1994
-----------------------------------
The problem and actions statements are accepted as written.
The standard does not completely specify the testing constraints for these
assertions. This is an editorial omission. This will be documented in
an errata for the document and also referred to the
sponsor for clarifying wording in the next amendment, with the suggested
action being the action stated in the original text above.
Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------
None.
_____________________________________________________________________________