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

[Wu Zhou]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Michael Eager wrote:

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

You said it.  This is my fault. I admit that it is short, also not very 
clear, and also somewhat late.  :-)

But just as what I said in the issue: "I don't have any detailed proposal 
yet. But ....".  In fact, my intention of submitting this issue is to 
statement the problem, and to see if we can get any comments (negative 
or positive) and at last if we can get out a solution for that. That 
proposal section I added in that issue is indeed not a complete one.  I 
just add some initial idea of mine and some comment from Daniel and 
others.  That might be the origin of confusion.  Really sorry for that!  
All this is attribute to my im-mature idea.  Not related to Daniel or 
any body else! 

Said that, I am very new to the process of submitting issue to the DWARF 
group (or any other standard committee).  I am very happy to have the 
chance to do that.  But it seems that I didn't do very well.  :-(

If anybody would like to work together with me to make this proposal better,
I am more than happy to do that!


> 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.

Maybe we can put the proposal section aside and discuss the problem 
itself.  My reading of the DWARF standard tells me that DW_TAG_entry_point 
is reserved for the specific purpose of Fortran alternate entry point.  So 
it is not proper for the general purpose of indicating the main entry.

> > > 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.

Thanks for this constructive idea.  I will try to make it clearer.

Regards
- Wu Zhou