[Dwarf-discuss] DWARF Issue 050808.2&body=Re: <ahref=http://dwarf.freestandards.org/ShowIssue.php

[Michael Eager]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 18:55 -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> 
>>Wu Zhou wrote:
>>
>>>Hello, committee members
>>>
>>>Now that DWARF-3 had been published for a while, can I have the pleasure 
>>>to re-open this deferred issue?
>>>
>>>I don't see any action I can do from the net.  So I am asking here.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>- Wu Zhou
>>
>>http://dwarf.freestandards.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=050808.2&type=closed
>>
>>We will consider revisions to the DWARF standard starting mid-year.
>>
>>The proposal is somewhat vague.  I'm personally unclear
>>why there is a need for an new TAG.  Saying Stabs does something
>>one way so DWARF should do the same is not persuasive.
>>
>>Is there a reason why using DW_TAG_entry_point doesn't work?
> 
> 
> DW_TAG_entry_point was very specifically pointed out to *not* be the
> same as what he is looking for, IIRC.

As I indicated, the proposal is vague.  Also short.

The mention of DW_TAG_entry_point along with your name suggests, in an
unclear fashion, that you believed it to be adequate.  Perhaps this is
inaccurate, but that's at least how I read the proposal.

>>In general, proposals which have been implemented are preferred.
> 
> We specifically put off adding it to GCC to get resolution *first*, so
> this is kinda a downer.  Why create the chance that someone will do this
> again a different way, when this is a simple issue that could be
> resolved once, first?
> 
> This is not something we need heavy implementation experience to determine 
> whether it is useful or not.  
> But I guess for now, Wu, DW_TAG_GNU_entry_point or whatever should be added.

Again, this is a general principle.  Unless there is a clear
proposal (which this is not) then the preference is for some
demonstration that the proposed change actually addresses
the issue.

Again, I read the very few lines of the proposal and I don't
find it clear.  Perhaps making a clear and complete proposal
would be a more productive way to get a resolution.

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