Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!usenix!jsq
From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.2: Shell and tools
Message-ID: <532@usenix.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 90 13:47:37 GMT
References: <530@usenix.ORG>
Sender: jsq@usenix.ORG
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Urbana, IL
Lines: 38
Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)

In article <530@usenix.ORG> jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) writes:

>A few utilities remain contentious:

>   + nice, renice: These require underlying functionality absent from
>     POSIX.1, although POSIX.4 has setscheduler(), which allows
>     applications to set priority and scheduling algorithms.

A point of clarification:  These utilities, as defined in 1003.2a,
do NOT require any functionality that is not in 1003.1.  Both can be
implemented on a bare-bones 1003.1 system as having no effect on 
execution priority.  The following, for example, is a valid
shell script implementation of nice:

	case $1 in
	    -n) shift;shift;;
	    -*  shift;;
	esac
	exec $*

renice is a little more complicated, but not much.  (It should just have
to check for valid arguments.)

So saying that you can't implement this on a 1003.1 system is not only
a red herring, it simply isn't true.

Providing these utilities allows well-mannered applications to make use
of the priority manipluation features that are already provided by most
implementations.

David A. Willcox		"Just say 'NO' to universal drug testing"
Motorola MCD - Urbana		UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!udc!willcox
1101 E. University Ave.		INET: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Urbana, IL 61801		FONE: 217-384-8534

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 122