.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-2-84 _____________________________________________________________________________ Topic: renice -n Relevant Sections: 5.24 Defect Report: ----------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:08:33 -0500 From: "David J. Fiander" <[email protected]> I request an interpretation of the behaviour of renice as outlined in ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993, section 5.24. The synopsis of renice indicates that the -n increment option is optional when using the "non-obsolescent" command line, but nowhere is the behaviour of renice described when no increment is provided. How should renice behave when no increment is specified? I recommend that it be made clear that the default increment value is implementation defined. WG15 response for 9945-2:1993 ----------------------------------- 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: 12 Nov 94 Response received: Feb 10 1995 Proposed Resoln forwarded: 13th Feb 1995 Finalised: March 28th 1995 _____________________________________________________________________________