[Dwarf-discuss] RE: 2.12.1, Non-defining Declarations [Dwarf-discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3]
Chris Quenelle
Chris.Quenelle
Tue May 24 17:44:27 GMT 2005
> 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?
>
I'd like to see a significant discussion (in rationale)
of this issue, because without such a discussion
the specification is a little confusing. It's obviously
redundant, so why did we make it that way.
John's summary seems like a good starting point for the rationale:
------
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.
More information about the Dwarf-discuss
mailing list