This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
Cc: "binutils\@sourceware.org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, ruiu at google dot com, peter dot smith at linaro dot org, sguelton at redhat dot com, gnu-gabi at sourceware dot org
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 16:39:47 +0100
Subject: Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0
References: <24c0c8d8-44e6-ab81-bdfb-43af8b53323b@redhat.com> <mvm5zuxg8wt.fsf@suse.de> <c0e26c8d-77d9-504a-38cf-b71306ba2c14@redhat.com>

On Jan 09 2019, Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:

> The problem is that this does not make it clear whether a value
> of zero is allowed or an error.

Why would the absence of flag 0 be different from the absence of any
other flag?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0
  - From: Cary Coutant

References:
- RFC Adding a section group flag of 0
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: RFC Adding a section group flag of 0
  - From: Nick Clifton

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]