[BuildAttributes] Address review comments from MaskRay

Commmit will be squashed prior to commit.

- Fixed references to GNU properties which have moved to sysvabi64.rst
- Mention in buildattr64.rst that SysVr4 platforms are recommended to
  use GNU properties in loadable units.
- Change lattice to partial order.
- Be more consistent with relocatable object file, rather than
  relocatable file, relocatable object or relocatable object file.
- Rewrite example of library selection to be clearer.

buildattr64/buildattr64.rst

@@ -362,9 +362,10 @@ Introduction
 About build attributes and compatibility
 ----------------------------------------
 
-Build attributes record data that a linker needs to reason mechanically
-about the compatibility, or incompatibility, of a set of relocatable files.
-Other tools that consume relocatable files may find the data useful.
+Build attributes record data that a linker needs to reason
+mechanically about the compatibility, or incompatibility, of a set of
+relocatable object files.  Other tools that consume relocatable object
+files may find the data useful.
 
 Build attributes are designed to have long-term invariant
 meaning. They record choices to which there is long term public
@@ -373,9 +374,9 @@ the ABI for the Arm Architecture (of which this document is a
 component), vendor data sheets, and similar long lived publications.
 
 Build attributes approximate the intentions the user of a compiler or
-assembler has for the compatibility of the relocatable file produced
-by the compiler or assembler (`Attribute values are based on user
-intentions`_).
+assembler has for the compatibility of the relocatable object file
+produced by the compiler or assembler (`Attribute values are based on
+user intentions`_).
 
 The figure below depicts the software development flows in which build
 attributes are important.
@@ -392,9 +393,9 @@ In this depiction there are two principal uses of build attributes.
   compatibility model.
 
 * Between tool chains, build attributes describe the intended
-  compatibility of a relocatable file and the entities it defines in
-  terms independent of either tool chain, promoting safe exchange of
-  portable code in binary form.
+  compatibility of a relocatable object file and the entities it
+  defines in terms independent of either tool chain, promoting safe
+  exchange of portable code in binary form.
 
 Attribute values are based on user intentions
 ---------------------------------------------
@@ -403,7 +404,7 @@ We base attribute values on user intentions to avoid the values being
 an unpredictable (effectively random) function of a compiler’s code
 generation algorithms and to support using attributes with assembly
 language without overburdening programmers. Where attributes support
-exchanging portable relocatable files among tool chains,
+exchanging portable relocatable object files among tool chains,
 predictability is worth more than precision.
 
 Capturing user intentions about compatibility
@@ -422,10 +423,10 @@ GUI configuration options – that present choices similar to those
 revealed in such documentation and modeled by ABI-defined
 compatibility tags.
 
-The challenge for a tool that generates relocatable files is to select
-the set of build attributes – giving a value to each compatibility tag
-– that best approximates the user’s intentions implicit in its
-invocation options.
+The challenge for a tool that generates relocatable object files is to
+select the set of build attributes – giving a value to each
+compatibility tag – that best approximates the user’s intentions
+implicit in its invocation options.
 
 This part of the problem of managing compatibility does not have a
 perfect solution. A user’s intentions are imperfectly approximated by
@@ -447,10 +448,10 @@ between functions – this is not the case and it is reasonable for
 different tool chains to take different positions according to the
 markets they serve.
 
-Thus it is entirely reasonable that a relocatable file produced by
-tool chain A and accepted by tool chain B’s linker might be rejected
-by tool chain C’s linker when targeting exactly the same environment
-as tool chain
+Thus it is entirely reasonable that a relocatable object file produced
+by tool chain A and accepted by tool chain B’s linker might be
+rejected by tool chain C’s linker when targeting exactly the same
+environment as tool chain
 B.
 
 The kinds of compatibility modeled by build attributes
@@ -474,8 +475,8 @@ unconditionally try to execute is a subset of the set of instructions
 implemented by the processor.
 
 Target-related attributes describe the hardware-related demands a
-relocatable file will place on an execution environment through being
-included in an executable file for that environment.
+relocatable object file will place on an execution environment through
+being included in an executable file for that environment.
 
 For example, target-related attributes could record whether use of the
 ``FEAT_MEMTAG`` extension is permitted, and at what architectural
@@ -520,8 +521,8 @@ requirement for ``FEAT_SVE`` to be present.
 Combining attribute values
 --------------------------
 
-Suppose E1 and E2 are entities (for example, relocatable files) with
-attribute values a1 and a2 for an attribute tag T. This section
+Suppose E1 and E2 are entities (for example, relocatable object files)
+with attribute values a1 and a2 for an attribute tag T. This section
 discusses how to generate the correct value of T for the entity formed
 by combining E1 and E2 (for example, the executable file formed by
 linking E1 with E2)
@@ -544,8 +545,6 @@ because the set of instructions conforming to architecture Armv8.0-A is
 a subset of the set conforming to architecture Armv9.0-A. Stated more
 precisely, it is the case that {ISA\@Armv8.0-A} ⊆ {ISA\@Armv9.0-A}.
 
-With the attribute value of the tag
-
 This partial order of the attributes often differs from the arithmetic
 order of the enumerated values of the tag. In many cases the partial
 order is:
@@ -605,8 +604,8 @@ is set to 'M'.
 The specification will note known forcing functions. Implementation of
 forcing functions is Q-o-I.
 
-Representing build attributes in a relocatable ELF file
-=======================================================
+Representing build attributes in a relocatable ELF Object file
+==============================================================
 
 Encoding
 --------
@@ -625,20 +624,22 @@ String values are encoded using NUL-terminated byte strings (NTBS).
 Encoding of meta data in a loadable-unit
 ----------------------------------------
 
-Build attributes are only defined for relocatable objects.  The
+Build attributes are only defined for relocatable object files.  The
 encoding of metadata in a loadable-unit (executable or shared-library)
 is platform specific.  For example a platform may choose to use GNU
 program properties as defined in (LINUX_ABI_). This document specifies
-the meaning of build attributes for relocatable objects only.  The
+the meaning of build attributes for relocatable object files only.  The
 presence of ``.ARM.attributes`` sections in a loadable-unit is
 permitted, but the interpretation of the contents of the section is
-outside the scope of this document.
+outside the scope of this document. The use of ``.note.gnu.property``
+sections for loadable-units is recommended for SysVr4 platforms,
+see (SYSVABI64_) for details.
 
 .. raw:: pdf
 
    PageBreak
 
-Formal Syntax of an ELF Attributes Section
+Formal syntax of an ELF Attributes Section
 ==========================================
 
 An ELF Attributes section uses a processor specific section with details
@@ -770,7 +771,7 @@ aeabi-feature-and-bits subsection
 The full vendor name is "aeabi-feature-and-bits"
 
 This subsection contains tags that describe the same optional feature
-bits as the "GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_AND" as described in
+bits as the ``GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_AND`` as described in
 (AAELF64_).
 
 header contents
@@ -780,11 +781,11 @@ header contents
 
 *parameter type* is 0 (ULEB128)
 
-Combining attribute values
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+Combining attribute values of aeabi-feature-and-bits
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-With reference to Combining attribute values in (ADDENDA32_). The
-partial order for all of the tags in this subsection is reversed.
+With reference to Combining attribute values. The partial order for
+all of the tags in this subsection is reversed.
 
 +-------+---------------+
 + Value + Partial Order |
@@ -822,7 +823,7 @@ The (PAUTHABI64_) defines an extension to ELF in which code pointers
 are signed using instructions in the FEAT_PAuth extension. The
 pointers that are signed as well as the modifiers and key used for
 each type of pointer are known as the signing schema. To make use of
-(PAuthABI64_) all relocatable objects and shared-library dependencies
+(PAuthABI64_) all relocatable object files and shared-library dependencies
 must use the same signing schema.
 
 While the requirement for the ``FEAT_PAuth`` extension is recorded in
@@ -842,53 +843,54 @@ Where the *<id>* is one of a number of registered platforms.
      <id> The version number of the Schema.
 
 Where the *<id>* is the version number in the context of
-Tag_PAuth_Platform.
+``Tag_PAuth_Platform``.
 
 The signing schema is not optional.
 
 The parameter type is ULEB128.
 
-The lattice value is custom. Two entities are compabitible if both
-Tag_PAuth_Platform and Tag_PAuth_Schema are identical.
+The partial order is custom. Two entities are compabitible if both
+``Tag_PAuth_Platform`` and ``Tag_PAuth_Schema`` are identical.
 
-The compatibility between an entity with Tag_PAuth_Platform = 0,
-Tag_PAuth_Schema = 0, and Tag_Pauth_Platform != 0, Tag_PAuth_Schema !=
+The compatibility between an entity with ``Tag_PAuth_Platform`` = 0,
+``Tag_PAuth_Schema`` = 0, and ``Tag_Pauth_Platform`` != 0, ``Tag_PAuth_Schema`` !=
 0 is implementation defined.
 
 aeabi-feature-and-bits and GNU Program Properties
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 GNU Program Properties as defined by [LINUX_ABI_] are a similar
 concept to Build Attributes. Program properties are encoded in
-.note.gnu.property sections. A static linker combines the program
+``.note.gnu.property`` sections. A static linker combines the program
 properties according to the rules for each program property type. The
-combined .note.gnu.property section is written to the loadable-unit.
+combined ``.note.gnu.property`` section is written to the loadable-unit.
 
 Build attributes replace the use of GNU program properties for
-relocatable objects.  A platform may choose to use GNU program
+relocatable object files.  A platform may choose to use GNU program
 properties to represent properties in loadable-units with static
 linkers translating from a merged build attribute value to a GNU
 program property.
 
-Many existing relocatable objects have a .note.gnu.property section
-with the ``GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_AND`` program property.
-
-A relocatable object may have a .note.gnu.property section and
-``.ARM.attributes`` sections. When both program properties and build
-attributes exist, the program properties must be translated into build
-attributes using the mapping below. The relocatable object is not well
-formed if a build attribute from the ``.ARM.attributes`` has a
-different value when translated from .note.gnu.property.
-
-+---------------------------------------+---------------------------+
-+ Feature bit set in relocatable object | Equivalent  tag = value   |
-+=======================================+===========================+
-+ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_BTI*  | Tag_Feature_BTI = 1       |
-+---------------------------------------+---------------------------+
-+ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_PAC*  | Tag_Feature_PAC = 1       |
-+---------------------------------------+---------------------------+
-+ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_GCS*  | Tag_Feature_GCS = 1       |
-+---------------------------------------+---------------------------+
+Many existing relocatable object files have a ``.note.gnu.property``
+section with the ``GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_AND`` program
+property.
+
+A relocatable object file may have a ``.note.gnu.property`` section
+and ``.ARM.attributes`` sections. When both program properties and
+build attributes exist, the program properties must be translated into
+build attributes using the mapping below. The relocatable object file
+is not well formed if a build attribute from the ``.ARM.attributes``
+has a different value when translated from ``.note.gnu.property``.
+
++--------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
++ Feature bit set in relocatable object file | Equivalent  tag = value   |
++============================================+===========================+
++ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_BTI*       | Tag_Feature_BTI = 1       |
++--------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
++ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_PAC*       | Tag_Feature_PAC = 1       |
++--------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
++ *GNU_PROPERTY_AARCH64_FEATURE_1_GCS*       | Tag_Feature_GCS = 1       |
++--------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
 
 For a platform that uses GNU Program Properties in loadable-units the
 mapping table above can be used to translate build attributes back to