From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33711 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2019 21:29:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnu-gabi-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: gnu-gabi-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 33678 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2019 21:29:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:24c0c8d, H*f:sk:mvm5zux, H*f:sk:c0e26c8, retained X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-HELO: mail-vk1-f173.google.com Received: from mail-vk1-f173.google.com (HELO mail-vk1-f173.google.com) (209.85.221.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 21:29:56 +0000 Received: by mail-vk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id h128so2001274vkg.11 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:29:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4JeeKhyxfTxNOnoCnYLDesfu26avc9xdSmzJ9NgSwkc=; b=XerhO7LVj489eRQ5Yqz2XYSHK5z1eLHYAg/sA25dP0ktlupbpzDZxYAa34GzM0qMfR Mz8Jzu7xWpJaeqnTdUFUKYdh69mKp+OR813/ft+1HVYhO3Bd7NrU7M1I7YyISDHOXlPn F81QBHKXoat22rqYg+CTcjWtsxOja+p5hHifcPmuWQI0krbULNNEIEQudfw0d3XOREtn tD6yuJBE6wkNkNOip/y5yomacKif7JXvJ38F3R403R/Iq0Jlj7tSgVzABwWj3si6o5FB DtM8DK14Gu0VP6npwRo67hdd5VIhAu4qWVwOUAnQ5O9l38EzXBfFJ7kVGNDKfcz+L/UP ecDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4JeeKhyxfTxNOnoCnYLDesfu26avc9xdSmzJ9NgSwkc=; b=XngkKQltPOhKSAP+s2r8uA7f5mzFmyA9LCZQmT6E0QOPmNB95jhJKJXIpmiG49lORv uLEqi6EQu00+c/uHAhnLkFhJssAWmiHe8T37e7T0ygpgpyvqqRQKJp2TRx6Nm7TjISR0 rPIE3OR49vvjJ2LYGg5EuUGZMB/Gn1NDkpM2oc1Ix0B6hp+iAvrY4bF8H7UvC/GPe4Ro TjNEM1UrPU5i0tAXc1KRObAGOnF8V9Wwjc7yN6avvcvBrrEd6wg2mI+nIyDZ3Hv7898g KVkjVcGjBhE+8ZWzKBSNhbjCffBe0qcs3fpihu4dP7pOHcfu53uxFgF5EaC6Umj27cfp W2cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcp6OxO5Sw5maGd3PEDaPNsP0FtaHzryu77zWFZvnXV+/+dIVcx rCHdbmm0FSKp5ijQ49BBIJizvfYhBz3EmDRjIW2fnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN54aMc3WWaLi86brZ3B/mJDDUZ4ZthuyxVGK8e8H5tEe60f/n569WwmZbSlBmKhA0rRymQ/5JAtud8CMVZ81e8= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9350:: with SMTP id v77mr2767134vkd.64.1547069394045; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:29:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <24c0c8d8-44e6-ab81-bdfb-43af8b53323b@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Rui Ueyama via gnu-gabi" Reply-To: Rui Ueyama Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0 To: Cary Coutant Cc: Andreas Schwab , Nick Clifton , "binutils@sourceware.org" , Peter Smith , sguelton@redhat.com, gnu-gabi@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-q1/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 After carefully reading the page (*), I also found that the value 0 can be interpreted as an absence of any flag and has no semantics other than defining a group, which would probably means that they should be discarded or retained as a group when GC runs. But I don't think it is very clear; we probably should add a clarifying statement to the spec. * https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19120-01/open.solaris/819-0690/chapter7-26/index.html On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:11 AM Cary Coutant wrote: > > > > The problem is that this does not make it clear whether a value > > > of zero is allowed or an error. > > > > Why would the absence of flag 0 be different from the absence of any > > other flag? > > I'm OK with adding a clarifying statement to the spec. > > -cary