From: Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: diamon-discuss <diamon-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, Jeremie Galarneau <jgalar@efficios.com>, gbastien+lttng <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:50:33 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <1854624569.76059.1588179033966.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <104691146.75724.1588162084473.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > To: "Philippe Proulx" <pproulx@efficios.com> > Cc: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam" <matthew.khouzam@ericsson.com>, "Jeremie > Galarneau" <jgalar@efficios.com>, "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, "diamon-discuss" > <diamon-discuss@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@efficios.com wrote: > >> ----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Philippe Proulx pproulx@efficios.com wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >>>> To: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam" >>>> <matthew.khouzam@ericsson.com>, >>>> diamon-discuss@linuxfoundation.org, pproulx@efficios.com, "Jeremie Galarneau" >>>> <jgalar@efficios.com> >>>> Cc: "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers" >>>> <mathieu.desnoyers@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: Geneviève Bastien <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Geneviève Bastien <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@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. > > Geneviève 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 _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> Cc: diamon-discuss <diamon-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, Jeremie Galarneau <jgalar@efficios.com>, gbastien+lttng <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> Subject: Re: [lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:50:33 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <1854624569.76059.1588179033966.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20200429165033.wxPHvhxkFtf-G5L_j336nu145ysr-Bl_kg4vzUkij4U@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <104691146.75724.1588162084473.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> > To: "Philippe Proulx" <pproulx@efficios.com> > Cc: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam" <matthew.khouzam@ericsson.com>, "Jeremie > Galarneau" <jgalar@efficios.com>, "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, "diamon-discuss" > <diamon-discuss@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@efficios.com wrote: > >> ----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Philippe Proulx pproulx@efficios.com wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> >>>> To: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam" >>>> <matthew.khouzam@ericsson.com>, >>>> diamon-discuss@linuxfoundation.org, pproulx@efficios.com, "Jeremie Galarneau" >>>> <jgalar@efficios.com> >>>> Cc: "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers" >>>> <mathieu.desnoyers@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: Geneviève Bastien <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Geneviève Bastien <gbastien+lttng@versatic.net> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@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. > > Geneviève 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 _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-29 16:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-04-23 20:52 [RFC PATCH CTF 0/3] Common Trace Format Updates (upcoming 1.8.3) Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-23 20:52 ` [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-23 22:51 ` Jérémie Galarneau via lttng-dev 2020-04-24 14:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-24 14:05 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:40 ` Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:40 ` [lttng-dev] " Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:51 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:51 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-29 12:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-29 12:08 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-29 16:50 ` Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev [this message] 2020-04-29 16:50 ` Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev 2020-04-23 20:52 ` [RFC PATCH CTF 2/3] Clarify monotonicity requirement on timestamp begin Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:42 ` Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:42 ` [lttng-dev] " Philippe Proulx via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:54 ` Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-28 18:54 ` [lttng-dev] " Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev 2020-04-23 20:52 ` [RFC PATCH CTF 3/3] Clarify that timestamp begin/end need to be complete clock values Mathieu Desnoyers via lttng-dev
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1854624569.76059.1588179033966.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com \ --to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \ --cc=diamon-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=gbastien+lttng@versatic.net \ --cc=jgalar@efficios.com \ --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \ --cc=pproulx@efficios.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).