From: Cary Coutant <ccoutant@gmail.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
x86-64-abi <x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com>,
Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: OR_AND semantics (was: GNU property saga)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 06:06:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJimCsHME4+0nW1w+Xnpb-WmxUS1bkCprpc_63GXk6=L28VK3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOojB+8WgNz+Tmu3r0djYmE5bXGqYy5Ktn_xsASp+yjL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
> > Now the above language would include FEATURE_X in the output, but bit 4
> > would be reliable (set a.bit4 && b.bit4) while bit 5 would be unreliable
> > (it is zero, even if it is one in a.o and _would_ be one in b.o had we
> > used a newer producer).
>
> We can't add a bit to FEATURE_X in such a way that FEATURE_X generated
> by older producers become invalid. We must add the bit to FEATURE_Y which is
> unsupported to all prior producers. Am I missing something obvious?
Yes, I think so. This is the point Michael (and I) were making. By
using KNOWN bits, you can add new feature bits without having to start
a whole new word of bits.
-cary
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-08 6:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-04 17:25 GNU property saga Michael Matz
2019-03-04 17:40 ` OR_AND semantics (was: GNU property saga) Michael Matz
2019-03-05 0:48 ` Cary Coutant
2019-03-06 13:57 ` Michael Matz
2019-03-07 6:56 ` Cary Coutant
2019-03-08 3:44 ` H.J. Lu
2019-03-08 6:06 ` Cary Coutant [this message]
2019-03-08 6:25 ` Jim Dehnert
2019-03-11 7:34 ` H.J. Lu
2019-03-20 14:51 ` GNU property saga Mark Wielaard
[not found] ` <25adbffa-fc4c-1b01-7949-fbe0dc212f70@arm.com>
2019-05-10 18:37 ` Mark Wielaard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAJimCsHME4+0nW1w+Xnpb-WmxUS1bkCprpc_63GXk6=L28VK3A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ccoutant@gmail.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).