On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 21:22 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:56:48 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I don't think it is very helpful or productive to refuse to have a > > technical opinion on a fair question about a code change you are > > proposing. > > By ": 1" I give a promise to compiler I will use only its single bit. > Smart compiler with -fwhole-program, -flto etc. could make it 'unsigned char' > when the struct is not externally visible and therefore ABI-constrained.
Yeah, I understood why you proposed it for the new field. It was just pointed out that it was an inconsistent choice with respect to the existing code/struct. > libdwfl/ > 2014-09-10 Jan Kratochvil <[email protected]> > > * dwfl_build_id_find_elf.c (dwfl_build_id_find_elf): Use IS_EXECUTABLE. > * dwfl_segment_report_module.c (dwfl_segment_report_module): Set > IS_EXECUTABLE. > * libdwflP.h (struct Dwfl_Module): New field is_executable. I like this cleanup (modulo the already existing e32/e64 confusion in the code). Thanks, Mark
