From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 098991F55B for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159C53986812; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 159C53986812 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1590760824; bh=Yc4JEIhwx8uyVv75zm/iw1dazEGcMPKSHKrsmkAiF9k=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=u5eBHtCko5s270bBVkNluf8WxqA3rbFpmeY2H8GmDXYx6YS9qD+MqSliJ16J+Q8/Y 26Z2+AkIArrLe0W5RTXbfwV8Et24d3q0ZavYX/e1LXO5fJRVgLwAPrwYw4U/3cKCfd WP1G+Ya/Val+qhHUJArVT5uO2le7q/d5XynOeryQ= Received: from bhuna.collabora.co.uk (bhuna.collabora.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:25:2eeb:e3e3]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BFEE386F477 for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:00:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6BFEE386F477 Received: from collabora.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:4d48:ad56:3000:69bc:a1cf:7e0c:49d6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: vivek) by bhuna.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D7672A45A5; Fri, 29 May 2020 15:00:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 15:00:19 +0100 (BST) X-X-Sender: vivek@noise.cbg.collabora.co.uk To: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] binutils patches to add DT_FLAGS_1 / DF_1_UNIQUE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <87h7y5vhs2.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: =?utf-8?q?Vivek_Das=C2=A0Mohapatra_via_Libc-alpha?= Reply-To: =?UTF-8?Q?Vivek_Das=C2=A0Mohapatra?= Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Vivek_Das=C2=A0Mohapatra_via_Libc-alpha?= , vivek@etla.org Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Tue, 31 Mar 2020, Vivek Das Mohapatra via Libc-alpha wrote: >> It would perhaps be less controversial to add a new dynamic tag in the >> GNU range for this, rather than a global flag value (in the space >> shared with other operating systems). > > Ok, I'll do that. Thanks. Other than that, do you see any problems with > the implementation or documentation? Finally got back round to this bit - could you tell me what the GNU range is exactly? Did you mean put it in DT_FLAGS instead? or inbetween DT_LOOS and DT_HIOS? Or something else?