eager at eagercon.com
Wed Sep 25 09:16:32 PDT 2013
On 09/25/13 03:38, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I saw the following issue which proposed DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 and
> DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11. It appears to have been accepted for DWARF4
> according to this page:
> But apparently didn't make it into the actual DWARF4 spec.
> Now I notice DWARF4 came out in 2010, so at least DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11
> would be speculative. Was it misfiled and is this a proposal for DWARF5
Issue 120628.1 which added DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 and DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11
appears to have been misfiled as resolved in DWARF4. I've moved it to the
correct area, current resolved issues.
> Asking because I was wondering if it would make sense to propose
> DW_LANG_C11 (ISO/IEC 9899:2011) for DWARF5?
Yes, if there are differences in meaning for DWARF attributes which
depend on the language version. Please use the Comment page:
Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
More information about the Dwarf-Discuss