[Dwarf-discuss] RE: 2.12.1, Non-defining Declarations [Dwarf-discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3]

Bishop, John E john.e.bishop
Tue May 17 09:44:31 PDT 2005


Thanks for the responses!

I can see the force of the argument about not wanting
to create pairs of abbreviations in some implementations.
As specified, producers have a choice of three reasonable
methods:

1.  Always have a DW_AT_declaration attribute and
    set the flag true or false;

2.  Have two different abbreviations, one of which
    has the attribute; uses of the abbreviation 
    with the attribute will always have a true value
    (redundantly).

3.  Have two different abbreviations, one of which
    has the attribute; uses of the abbreviation 
    with the attribute may have true or false flags.

This seems fine to me.

Jim Blandy's re-wording of 2.12.1 seems like a good idea
to me.

Cary Coutant's note deserves calling out in the 
specification, I think: shouldn't it be a meta-rule
that every attribute has a value, and no attribute's
"mere presence" is significant?

	-John 



More information about the Dwarf-Discuss mailing list