[Dwarf-Discuss] DW_TAG_base_type must have DW_AT_name?

Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com
Wed Oct 27 13:32:11 PDT 2010

Kendrick Wong wrote:
> In section 5.1, does the specification mean that DW_TAG_base_type *must* 
> have a DW_AT_name or it *can* have a DW_AT_name?
> The name attribute makes sense for language like C/C++, but I'm not sure 
> how it applies to language like COBOL, where the type name is implied in 
> the picture string:
> i.e.
> this generates a variable MYEDIT, which points to a base type with 
> DW_AT_encoding(DW_ATE_edited).  The type itself really has no name.
> FYI.. here is the wordings In section 5.1:
> "A base type is represented by a debugging information entry with the 
> tag DW_TAG_base_type.
> A base type entry *has* a DW_AT_name attribute whose value is a 
> null-terminated string containing the name of the base type as 
> recognized by the programming language of the compilation unit 
> containing the base type entry.
> ...
> A base type entry *may* have a DW_AT_endianity attribute as described in 
> Section 4.1. If omitted, the encoding assumes the representation that is 
> the default for the target architecture."

Please submit a proposal to adopt the relaxed wording.

Michael Eager	 eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077

More information about the Dwarf-Discuss mailing list