[lttng-dev] [RFC PATCH CTF 1/3] Clarify that unlisted enum values are implementation-defined

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Philippe Proulx pproulx at efficios.com wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers at efficios.com>
>> To: "gbastien+lttng" <gbastien+lttng at versatic.net>, "Matthew Khouzam"
>> <matthew.khouzam at ericsson.com>,
>> diamon-discuss at linuxfoundation.org, pproulx at efficios.com, "Jeremie Galarneau"
>> <jgalar at efficios.com>
>> Cc: "lttng-dev" <lttng-dev at lists.lttng.org>, "Mathieu Desnoyers"
>> <mathieu.desnoyers at 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 at versatic.net>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Geneviève Bastien <gbastien+lttng at versatic.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers at 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.

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