From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com (Mathieu Desnoyers) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:51:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined In-Reply-To: <1031751564.72894.1588099218629.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> Message-ID: <1859708486.72922.1588099890391.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> ----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Philippe Proulx pproulx at efficios.com wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" >> To: "gbastien+lttng" , "Matthew Khouzam" >> , >> diamon-discuss at linuxfoundation.org, pproulx at efficios.com, "Jeremie Galarneau" >> >> Cc: "lttng-dev" , "Mathieu Desnoyers" >> >> 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 >> >> Signed-off-by: Genevi?ve Bastien >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers >> --- >> 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. 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