From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DFE43858C74 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:35:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8DFE43858C74 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from tarox.wildebeest.org (83-87-18-245.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.87.18.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DA063000B37 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 13:35:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tarox.wildebeest.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 542184045495; Mon, 6 Jun 2022 13:35:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <08d9442f61b46a0fe64449c7f613a253039797cf.camel@klomp.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Arm Ehdr flag printing From: Mark Wielaard To: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 13:35:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20220601143120.18204-1-mark@klomp.org> References: <20220601143120.18204-1-mark@klomp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-10.el7) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Elfutils-devel mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 11:35:45 -0000 On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 16:31 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > From: Ulrich Drepper >=20 > Arm needs to decode flags and I modeled it after the binutils code. > The same messages are printed. Given the requirement of the > interface > and the ABIs the current version of the callback function isn't > sufficient unless one wants to create a stateful interface. The > problem is that most flags need to be interpreted in the context of > the ABI version. So I changed the API to also pass the original flag > value. This shouldn't be a problem because there are no users yet. >=20 > There is also a bug in ebl_machine_flag_name. When copying the string > provided by the callback cp is moved past the NUL byte. It should > move to the NUL byte. Otherwise one cannot anything but the first > added flag description. Finally some cosmetic changes (space after > each comma in the output). Pushed. Cheers, Mark