Subject: Re: POSIX named semaphores naming restrictions in sem_open()
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ian Zagorskih <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/10/2004 13:12:50
On Friday 10 September 2004 12:59, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:43:00PM +0700, Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> > POSIX documentation indicates that lacking a leading slash character may
> > lead to failure but does not require it. Of course if i got POSIX docs
> > right.
> > Let's take for example some application that doesn't name semaphores this
> > way. It will be obviously "broken" on NetBSD while technically it is
> > POSIX compatible and could be fully usable in NetBSD environment.
> Your two claims about the standard are inconsistent. First you (correctly)
> note that semaphore names without a leading slash yield "implementation
> defined" behaviour under the POSIX standard. Then you claim that an
> application that relies on the behaviour of a *particular implementation*
> "is POSIX compatible".
Well, there are at least two points of view:
1. If it's not explicitly allowed it's prohibited.
2. If it's not explicitly prohibited it's allowed.
Making my statements i was based on the second view (though usually i prefer
> So, are they? No? Didn't think so. You have a nonportable application
> on your hands. You should fix it.
Thank you, i got the point. Technically, it's all i wanted to know :)