From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 74238 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2017 23:32:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 74215 invoked by uid 89); 24 Sep 2017 23:32:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:32:32 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8105F5F7A6; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:32:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 8105F5F7A6 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=sergiodj@redhat.com Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-193.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.193]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216606017E; Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:32:30 +0000 (UTC) From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: , , Pedro Alves , Djordje Todorovic Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ELF/BFD: Handle both variants of the 64-bit Linux core PRPSINFO note References: <878th6xj8q.fsf@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Maciej W. Rozycki's message of "Sun, 24 Sep 2017 23:18:41 +0100") Message-ID: <87k20nwu42.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg00744.txt.bz2 On Sunday, September 24 2017, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > >> I noticed that you put the most common definition at the top in the >> previous patch (32-bit), but now you're putting the most common at the >> bottom. I'd prefer if you could put the most common at the top and the >> specific one at the bottom for both 32- and 64-bit cases. > > I placed both 32-bit UID/GID versions ahead of their respective 16-bit > counterparts, recognising that the 32-bit versions are the default in BFD, > which in turns follows Linux's default. The > 32-bit UID/GID versions are also the predominant choice in Linux, for both > 32-bit ports (ARC, Blackfin, TI C6X, H8/300, Hexagon*, Meta, MicroBlaze, > MIPS, Nios II, OpenRISC, PA-RISC, PowerPC, TILE, UniCore-32*, Xtensa) and > 64-bit ports (all except SuperH). > > I hope it clarifies my choice and I think it makes sense this way. > > Maciej > > [*] Binutils port not upstream. Sure, thanks for explaining. I understand it's a matter of taste and as I said, it's really a nitpick. I still think the patch is good as is and a nice improvement to the current situation. -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/