@Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
Overall, this is great, just some small stuff about the flags to debate.
> + { ELFDATA2LSB, "l" },
+ { ELFDATA2MSB, "b" },
I think I still prefer `le` and `be` here.
> + if ((ehdr->e_flags & EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD)
+ flags += "h";
+ if ((ehdr->e_flags & EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT)
+ flags += "s";
Likewise `hf` and `sf` here.
> + auto res = emap.find(val);
+ return res != emap.end() ? res->second : "unknown";
+}
+
+static void armflags(GElf_Ehdr *ehdr, std::string & flags)
+{
+ if ((ehdr->e_flags & EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_HARD)
+ flags += "h";
+ if ((ehdr->e_flags & EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT) == EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_SOFT)
+ flags += "s";
+}
+
+static void x86flags(GElf_Ehdr *ehdr, std::string & flags)
+{
+ if (ehdr->e_machine == EM_X86_64 && ehdr->e_ident[EI_CLASS] == ELFCLASS32)
+ flags += "x";
So, is this means we get `x86-64x`? I'm not sure this makes any sense over
using `-x32` here and getting `x86-64-x32` as the value.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3578#pullrequestreview-2624178168
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3578/review/2624178...@github.com>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
