[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 GMT 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