From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pproulx@efficios.com (Philippe Proulx)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum
 values are implementation-defined
In-Reply-To: <104691146.75724.1588162084473.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
References: <20200423205226.496-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20200423205226.496-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <1031751564.72894.1588099218629.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <1859708486.72922.1588099890391.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <104691146.75724.1588162084473.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Message-ID: <1854624569.76059.1588179033966.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
> To: "Philippe Proulx" <pproulx at efficios.com>
> Cc: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng at versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam" <matthew.khouzam at ericsson.com>, "Jeremie
> Galarneau" <jgalar at efficios.com>, "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>, "diamon-discuss"
> <diamon-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2020 08:08:04
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined

> ----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:51 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com wrote:
> 
>> ----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Philippe Proulx pproulx at efficios.com wrote:
>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>>>> To: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng at versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam"
>>>> <matthew.khouzam at ericsson.com>,
>>>> diamon-discuss at linuxfoundation.org, pproulx at efficios.com, "Jeremie Galarneau"
>>>> <jgalar at efficios.com>
>>>> Cc: "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers"
>>>> <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 23 April, 2020 16:52:24
>>>> Subject: [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are
>>>> implementation-defined
>>> 
>>>> From: Genevi?ve Bastien <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net>
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Genevi?ve Bastien <gbastien+lttng at versatic.net>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> common-trace-format-specification.md | 3 +++
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/common-trace-format-specification.md
>>>> b/common-trace-format-specification.md
>>>> index fd49e59..f5fea51 100644
>>>> --- a/common-trace-format-specification.md
>>>> +++ b/common-trace-format-specification.md
>>>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ enum {
>>>> }
>>>> ~~~
>>>> 
>>>> +The mappings in the enumeration type do not have to be exhaustive.
>>>> +Unlisted values are implementation defined.
>>>> +
>>> 
>>> Why not just:
>>> 
>>>    An enumeration field can have an integral value which its type does not
>>>    map to a string.
>>> 
>>> ?
>> 
>> Good point, I will use that wording.
> 
> Genevi?ve pointed out on IRC that the sentence above is weird. Would the
> following convey the right meaning ?
> 
> "An enumeration field can have an integral value for which the associated
> enumeration
> type does not map to a string."

Sure.

Phil

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Mathieu
>> 
>>> 
>>> Phil
>>> 
>>>> ### 4.2 Compound types
>>>> 
>>>> Compound are aggregation of type declarations. Compound types include
>>>> --
>>> > 2.11.0
>> 
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
>> http://www.efficios.com
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com