Bring Conformance section into agreement with the C99 specification

[Former user]

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 58

Using the "ISO/IEC 9899:TC3 Committee Draft — Septermber 7, 2007 WG14/N1256" version
of the C99 specification as the point of reference, the beginning of the Conformance
section reads as follows.

4. Conformance

1 In this International Standard, ‘‘shall’’ is to be interpreted as a requirement on
an implementation or on a program; conversely, ‘‘shall not’’ is to be interpreted as
a prohibition.

2 If a ‘‘shall’’ or ‘‘shall not’’ requirement that appears outside of a constraint
is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior is otherwise indicated in
this International Standard by the words ‘‘undefined behavior’’ or by the omission
of any explicit definition of behavior. There is no difference in emphasis among these
three; they all describe ‘‘behavior that is undefined’’.

The 1.2 version of the UPC Specification reads as follows.

4 Conformance

1 In this document, “shall” is to be interpreted as a requirement on a UPC
implementation; conversely, “shall not” is to be interpreted as a prohibition.

2 If a “shall” or “shall not” requirement is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined
behavior is indicated by “undefined behavior” or by the omission of any explicit definition
of behavior from the UPC specification.

As shown, the C99 specification makes the distinction that "shall" and "shall not"
within a *constraint* will either describe a requirement or prohibition that is mandated
by the specification.  Outside of a constraint, violation of the phrases "shall" or
"shall not" is interpreted as undefined behavior.  This appears to be an important
distinction.

Proposal: Bring the UPC specification statement of conformance into agreement with
that used in the C99 specification.

In addition, the UPC specification's use of "shall", "shall not", and
"undefined behavior" should be reviewed to insure that they are in agreement with their
intended use, per the C99 specification.

Reported by gary.funck on 2012-06-29 23:50:43

[Former user]

``` I also notice another significant difference in the two passages Gary quoted:

C99: "a requirement on an implementation or on a program"

UPC: "a requirement on a UPC implementation"

So I would request that this aspect of the UPC spec conformance language also be brought into alignment w/ C99. Perhaps that was Gary's intent, but he was only clear about wanting the distinction made with regards to "shall" and "shall now" inside vs outside of a constraint. ```

Reported by `[e-mail]` on 2012-06-29 23:59:26

[Former user]

``` Paul, thanks for the clarification; that was my intent.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-06-30 00:15:43

[Former user]

``` I fully endorse the (clarified) proposal to align Section 4 of the UPC specification with the corresponding C99 text.

```

Reported by `[e-mail]` on 2012-06-30 00:41:45

[Former user]

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-07-03 15:10:26 - Labels added: Type-Clarification - Labels removed: Type-Defect

[Former user]

``` The reason C99 distinguishes between "shall" requirements inside and outside constraints is given in 5.1.1.3:

"A conforming implementation shall produce at least one diagnostic message (identified in an implementation-defined manner) if a preprocessing translation unit or translation unit contains a violation of any syntax rule or constraint, even if the behavior is also explicitly specified as undefined or implementation-defined. Diagnostic messages need not be produced in other circumstances"

In other words, "shall/shall not" constraint violations must issue a diagnostic. Violations of "shall/shall not" outside constraints just lead to undefined behavior.

The simplest solution may be to completely remove section 4 (Compliance), since it adds nothing to the C99 version, just replicates it (incorrectly). If we went this route then we should arrange for further section numbers to remain unchanged (and just have no section 4).

If people think this C99 section is important enough to replicate without change, then we should just do exactly that, replicate it word-for-word.

```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-08-13 04:10:02

[Former user]

``` "If people think this C99 section is important enough to replicate without change, then we should just do exactly that, replicate it word-for-word."

I think that including the C99 section word-for-word improves the usability of the UPC language specification as a mostly stand-alone document, but would also have no problem with removing section 4 entirely (and preserving the current section numbers).

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-13 05:54:36

[Former user]

``` Set default Consensus to "Low". ```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-19 23:26:19 - Labels added: Consensus-Low

[Former user]

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-19 23:45:19 - Labels added: Consensus-High - Labels removed: Consensus-Low

[Former user]

``` I'm taking ownership of this one.

The C99 license: "All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and microfilm, without permission in writing from either ISO at the address below or ISO's member body in the country of the requester"

I don't think it falls within the letter or the spirit of the law to copy an entire chapter of C99 into our document without permission, no matter what it may contribute to our document.

So I'm proceeding to remove the body of section 4 and replace it with a reference to C99.

```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-17 17:51:39

[Former user]

``` Official Change Proposal mailed to the list 9/17/2012

Description: ------------------ UPC 1.2's conformance section (chapter 4) differs in minor ways from C99 for no good reason. There is nothing UPC specific that needs to be said in this section, so we're proposing to replace it with a simple reference to the C document. Even this is slightly redundant due to Section 1, but it preserves the section numbering which seems like a Good Thing.

Proposed Change: ------------------------- --- upc-terms-and-defs.tex (revision 119) +++ upc-terms-and-defs.tex (working copy) @@ -116,14 +116,10 @@

\section{Conformance}

-\npf In this document, ``shall'' is to be interpreted as a - requirement on a UPC implementation; conversely, ``shall not'' is to - be interpreted as a prohibition. +\xchangenote[id=DB]{58}{TWO PARAGRAPHS THAT DUPLICATE C99 REMOVED}

-\np If a ``shall'' or ``shall not'' requirement - is violated, the behavior is undefined. Undefined behavior is - indicated by ``undefined behavior'' or by the omission of any - explicit definition of behavior from the UPC specification. +\npf All terminology and requirements defined in [ISO/IEC00 Sec. 4] also apply + to this document and UPC implementations.

\pagebreak \section{Environment}

```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-17 18:04:27 - Status changed: `PendingApproval`

[Former user]

This PendingApproval issue was ratified at the 10/19/2012 telecon, and merged into the
working draft in SVN 175.

Reported by danbonachea on 2012-10-22 18:43:14 - Status changed: Ratified