From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jeremie.galarneau@efficios.com (=?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=A9r=C3=A9mie_Galarneau?=) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:51:09 -0400 Subject: [lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined In-Reply-To: <20200423205226.496-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> References: <20200423205226.496-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20200423205226.496-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 16:52, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > 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. > + This is too vague to be useful knowing that the main rationale for this change is to allow enums to express some type of bitfield of flags in the tracer and readers [1]. What is the meaning of an unmapped value? This section should at least describe the correct interpretation of unmapped values as flags and when it is appropriate to do so. Thanks, J?r?mie [1] https://review.lttng.org/c/babeltrace/+/3045 > ### 4.2 Compound types > > Compound are aggregation of type declarations. Compound types include > -- > 2.11.0 > -- J?r?mie Galarneau EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com