From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [IPv6:2001:470:683e::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF613858D37 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:19:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6BF613858D37 Received: from [IPv6:240e:358:11e8:4200:dc73:854d:832e:3] (unknown [IPv6:240e:358:11e8:4200:dc73:854d:832e:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F66A6680C; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 01:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8bdbf9037b596fe02b386ef15da8a9b484a42c6f.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5 v1] LoongArch: bfd: Add new reloc types. From: Xi Ruoyao To: WANG Xuerui , liuzhensong Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, xuchenghua@loongson.cn, mengqinggang@loongson.cn, Fangrui Song , huangpei@loongson.cn Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:19:01 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20220718084316.390672-1-liuzhensong@loongson.cn> <8b637076-eb4c-47e0-2987-ac0973e38bca@xen0n.name> <62de74c5cfc7e558f82025ccffe5547d58bff172.camel@xry111.site> <417f93f5-64ca-9eb1-c338-b55edfd8eb83@xen0n.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.44.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD, LIKELY_SPAM_FROM, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:19:29 -0000 On Wed, 2022-07-20 at 12:03 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: > On 2022/7/20 10:07, liuzhensong wrote: > >=20 > > Some relocation name changes make sense. But, how to name a name is a= =20 > > matter of personal aesthetics, and it is difficult to satisfy=20 > > everyone. Does the name of the relocation matter? should we pay more > > attention to the specific implementation?=C2=A0 Remove useless and add = needed? A bug fix needs immediately attention, but a new feature may need more discussion to make it easier to be used correctly. I'm still reluctant about "adding a whole bunch of new relocation just 3 weeks before Binutils-2.39 release date". >=20 > Also, if you think the current names are more appropriate, with=20 > objective reasons, then *please communicate* your justification and=20 > thought behind them. We "outsiders" actually intend to cooperate, and=20 > have voiced our thoughts, but we don't know what you and your team=20 > think. For now all we have is this "LO12/HI20/LO20/HI12" and outsiders > can draw no conclusion other than "hmm this is going to cause=20 > confusion". We really need to communicate more in the open for pushing > things forward, constructively. About "LO12/HI20/LO20/HI12" vs "0/12/32/52", please consider: if someone has not read LoongArch manual, he'll have no idea about what is "HI20" and likely [mis]interpret it as "x[63:44]" instead of "x[51:32]". But if he has read LoongArch manual, the manual already uses "LU12I.W/LU32I.D/LU52I.D". So a different notion for the parts of immediate seems a completely unnecessary deviation. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University