From owner-freebsd-current Tue Apr 17 14:12:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C55737B422 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA15784; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:12:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:12:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <200104172112.RAA15784@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Bruce Evans Cc: Current List , freebsd-standards@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: FIO* doc added to tty.4 (review) In-Reply-To: References: <200104171817.OAA13546@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > Does POSIX now specify select() and/or poll() precisely enough to > show that the current behaviour is wrong? In addition to more explicit requirements for sockets, draft 6 has the following to say about select() and pselect(): A descriptor shall be considered ready for reading when a call to an input function with O_NONBLOCK clear would not block, whether or not the function would transfer data successfully. (The function might return data, an end-of-file indication, or an error other than one indicating that it is blocked, and in each of these cases the descriptor shall be considered ready for reading.) The socket semantic requirements come from 1003.1g-2000; this paragraph looks to have come from XSH4.2 (SUSv1). -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message