CVS difference for ais/ai-00256.txt

Differences between 1.7 and version 1.8
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00256.txt

--- ais/ai-00256.txt	2002/07/23 01:05:24	1.7
+++ ais/ai-00256.txt	2002/10/29 20:24:57	1.8
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
-!standard 13.11.01 (01)                                02-07-19  AI95-00256/05
+!standard 13.11.01 (01)                                02-10-23  AI95-00256/06
 !standard  A.12.01 (30)
 !standard  G.02.02 (03)
 !standard  7.06.01 (16)
 !standard  7.04 (09)
 !standard 10.02 (09)
+!standard  D.04 (15)
 !class binding interpretation 01-02-12
 !status work item 01-02-12
 !status received 01-02-12
@@ -19,8 +20,8 @@
 intent is that this AI will only be processed when a Corrigendum or Amendment
 is about to be issued.)
 
-1) The value of the Size_In_Storage_Elements is the maximum value that could be
-requested by the implementation.
+1) The value of the Max_Size_In_Storage_Elements attribute is the maximum value
+that could be requested by the implementation.
 
 2) Ada.Streams.Read (and Write) without an index parameter read
 (or write) at the current index if the file supports positioning.
@@ -35,10 +36,12 @@
 
 6) 10.2(9) should say "names" rather than "mentions".
 
+7) D.4(15) applies to all queuing policies.
+
 !question
 
 1)
-What is the value for Size_In_Storage_Elements?
+What is the value for Max_Size_In_Storage_Elements?
 
 13.11.1(3) states that:
 
@@ -46,7 +49,7 @@
 Size_In_Storage_Elements that will be requested via Allocate for an access type
 whose designated subtype is S."
 
-This seems to imply that the upper bound depend on the execution of the
+This seems to imply that the upper bound depends on the execution of the
 program. That's because this wording doesn't specify a conservative upper
 bound, nor a guess or an approximation. Shouldn't this say "that could be
 requested?" (Yes.)
@@ -78,10 +81,15 @@
 (Yes.)
 
 6)
-The AI-00180 says that "mentioned" is used "informally" in 10.2(9); it it not
+AI-00180 says that "mentioned" is used "informally" in 10.2(9); it it not
 intended to mean the technical term "mentioned". Should this be reworded to
 avoid the use of the technical term. (Yes.)
 
+7)
+AI-00212 changes 10.1.5(9). However, AI-00069 depended on 10.1.5(9) in order to
+be a confirmation. Is it allowed to make all queuing policies partition-wide?
+(Yes.)
+
 !recommendation
 
 (See summary.)
@@ -93,10 +101,10 @@
 !discussion
 
 1)
-The intent of the Size_In_Storage_Elements is that it supplies an upper bound
-on the memory that will be requested from Allocate. Certainly, there was no
-intent that the value depend on the execution of the program. Thus, we adjust
-the wording to say clearly what was meant.
+The intent of the Max_Size_In_Storage_Elements attribute is that it supplies an
+upper bound on the memory that will be requested from Allocate. Certainly,
+there was no intent that the value depend on the execution of the program.
+Thus, we adjust the wording to say clearly what was meant.
 
 2)
 Defect Report 8652/0055 make it clear that the model of stream files with
@@ -127,6 +135,15 @@
 rule. That cannot be clear; it would be better to fix the rule in the
 Amendment.
 
+7)
+Defect Report 8652/0116 (AI-00069) is a confirmation that D.4(15) applies to
+all queuing policies. It is a confirmation because 10.1.5(9) makes the rule
+redundant. However, AI-00212 changes 10.1.5(9). Since nothing in D.4 (except
+this paragraph) says that queuing policies are partition-wide, and this
+paragraph (arguably) does not apply to language-defined policies, we have a
+problem. The Defect Report suggested a wording clarification, which we adopt
+here.
+
 !corrigendum 7.04(09)
 
 @drepl
@@ -208,6 +225,15 @@
 and Write without a Positive_Count parameter starts writing at the current
 index.
 
+!corrigendum D.4(5)
+
+@drepl
+Implementations are allowed to define other queuing policies, but need not
+support more than one such policy per partition.
+@dby
+Implementations are allowed to define other queuing policies, but need not
+support more than one queuing policy per partition.
+
 !corrigendum G.2.2(3)
 
 @drepl
@@ -229,13 +255,23 @@
 
 !ACATS test
 
-1) The existing test CDB0A02 tests Size_In_Stream_Elements.
+1) The existing test CDB0A02 tests Max_Size_In_Stream_Elements.
 
 2) Test CXAC005 (which checks the objective for 8652/0055) also checks this
 rule.
 
 3) The ARG voted to not test the change to 3.5.8(2) (because it applies to very
 few machines), and that vote applies here as well.
+
+4) 'Might or might not' can't be meaningfully tested, as any result is OK.
+
+5) This is a presentation change. No test is needed.
+
+6) This is a presentation change. No test is needed. The original rule does
+need a C-test (it was not tested).
+
+7) Implementation Permissions are generally not testable by themselves; they
+only provide restrictions on what tests for other rules can do.
 
 !appendix
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent