This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Resend: Add a new chapter on the dynamic linker
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Ben Woodard <woodard at redhat dot com>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>, fweimer at redhat dot com, ricaljasan at pacific dot net
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:54:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resend: Add a new chapter on the dynamic linker
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=palves at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 4281B7E42D
- References: <20171012215658.8524-1-woodard@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710122216080.4373@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CABG5n3C=WKvFrQDn5jgcOqz91-UK5BR_SKnkKiuAKRR9bY9cVA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710132231190.14912@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CABG5n3DL_FKohiW=ihAQT+saYiUo=AEYMwDP4snxxg0ECjhgPg@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/14/2017 12:01 AM, Ben Woodard wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com
> <mailto:joseph@codesourcery.com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Ben Woodard wrote:
>
> > > > +outside of a particular compilation unit. If you link object files
> > > > +then the linker is able to find the location of referenced symbols or
> > > > +functions in other compilation unit's object files, insert them into
> > >
> > > "units'", as you're referring to the object files of multiple compilation
> > > units.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think that you are correct about this. I intended it to be a
> > possessive not a plural.
>
> I was reading it as a possessive of a plural that ends with s (so
> needing
> the apostrophe after the s, not before). If it were the possessive of a
> singular compilation unit, I'd expect e.g. "another" in place of
> "other".
>
>
> I literally had to diagram out the sentence to make sense of this one.
> In this case, I am referring to one location and so "another" is more
> appropriate to agree with "object file" rather than "object files".
(since you asked for a second opinion, and I was reading this,
here's mine.)
I think rephrasing to avoid possessive may clarify.
E.g., using "of" instead, and taking the corrected singular form
using "another" as you seem to be suggesting was intended:
If you link object files then the linker is able to find the
location of referenced symbols or functions in the object files
of another compilation unit.
However, the above doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
What does "object files of another compilation unit" mean?
Plural would seem a bit better:
If you link object files then the linker is able to find the
location of referenced symbols or functions in the object files
of other compilation units.
but then neither possessive relationship really makes sense to
me, in light of the sentence just before, where "compilation unit"
is defined as _the_ "object file":
"When you compile a file and are left with an object file that is
called a compilation unit."
(I assume you meant "you are" instead of "and are".)
Thanks,
Pedro Alves