From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1433120206307576377==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Wielaard To: elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] Add is_executable to Dwfl_Module. Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:33:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1410381230.27502.44.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: 20140910192241.GA14014@host2.jankratochvil.net --===============1433120206307576377== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 21:22 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:56:48 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I don't think it is very helpful or productive to refuse to have a > > technical opinion on a fair question about a code change you are > > proposing. > = > By ": 1" I give a promise to compiler I will use only its single bit. > Smart compiler with -fwhole-program, -flto etc. could make it 'unsigned c= har' > when the struct is not externally visible and therefore ABI-constrained. Yeah, I understood why you proposed it for the new field. It was just pointed out that it was an inconsistent choice with respect to the existing code/struct. > libdwfl/ > 2014-09-10 Jan Kratochvil > = > * dwfl_build_id_find_elf.c (dwfl_build_id_find_elf): Use IS_EXECUTABL= E. > * dwfl_segment_report_module.c (dwfl_segment_report_module): Set > IS_EXECUTABLE. > * libdwflP.h (struct Dwfl_Module): New field is_executable. I like this cleanup (modulo the already existing e32/e64 confusion in the c= ode). Thanks, Mark --===============1433120206307576377==--