.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-2-87
_____________________________________________________________________________
Topic: ar
Relevant Sections: 6.1
Defect Report:
-----------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:04:39 -0800
From: Fred Zlotnick <[email protected]>
Defect Report:
-----------------------
I would like to request an official, binding interpretation from the
WG15 concerning the following point in ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 (POSIX.2).
POSIX.2 clause 6.1 specifies the semantics of the "ar" utility. My
question regards the behavior of "ar" when invoked with the syntax
ar -r archive_name
where archive_name names a file that does not currently exist.
The Synopsis subclause (6.1.1) lists five valid syntaxes for invoking
"ar". One of these is
ar -r [-cuv] archive file ...
The file argument is not shown as optional. Since the syntax shown in
three other cases does show the file argument as optional, it is
reasonable to assume that this is intentional, and that invoking "ar"
with the -r option without a file argument is always an error.
Subclause 6.1.3 describes the options to "ar". In the description of
the -r option, the standard states (in part)
Replace or add file(s) to archive. If the archive named
by archive does not exist, a new archive shall be created
and a diagnostic message shall be written to standard error
(unless the -c option is specified). If no file(s) are
specified and the archive exists, the results are undefined.
One can read this description as implying that, if an archive is named
that does not exist, it is permissible to omit the file argument and
that in this case a new, empty archive is created. This contradicts
the earlier interpretation. Which is correct? In other words, when
"ar" is invoked as decribed, what must a conforming implementation do?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Proposed Interpretation response: (from mjc)
-------------------------
A conforming implementation may allow the use of the -r option without
file operands. The behaviour of ar in this case is undefined.
Applications should always specify one or more file operands with the -r
option.
Rationale
-------------
The only behaviour that the quoted passage specifies when the file
operand are missing is if the archive exists, and that behaviour is
undefined. It does not specify any behaviour if the file arguments are
missing and the archive does not exist. While one could read it to mean that
the file operands are optional, it does not state that, so the synopsis must
hold.
Even if it is read to mean the file operands are optional, the only
behaviour that may be assumed is that it is undefined.
There is nothing that suggests that an empty archive will be created, and
it is not clear that an application or user would want to create an empty
archive.
Historical practice is to require file operands when the -r option is used,
and nothing in the rationale suggests that the committee intended to change
that.
WG15 response for 9945-2:1993
-----------------------------------
The standard does not specify the meaning of ar -r archive-name. None of the
synopsis forms given for ar specify -r option with only one operand.
The standard does not speak to this issue, and as such no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this.
This is being referred to the sponsor.
Rationale
---------
None.
Forwarded to Interpretations group: 17 Nov 94
Response received: Feb 10 1995
Proposed Resoln forwarded: 13th Feb 1995
Finalised: March 28th 1995
_____________________________________________________________________________