[Dwarf-discuss] Proposal to support bundled instructions (e.g., Itanium)

[Jim Blandy]

On 7/13/06, Ron Brender <ron.brender at charter.net> wrote:
> Cary's scheme is upward compatible with the existing encoding so that I
> suppose that it is not strictly necessary to increase the version number
> for any line number table that includes this new scheme. OTOH, I do
> worry just a bit that a consumer that does not know/support the
> extension will get badly confused when it comes across the likely
> unchecked header length of zero, simply tucks it away for later use, and
> then bungles the rest of the line number header because of the extra
> bytes that it misconstrues. So maybe there should be a higher version
> number to enable use of this extension...

I definitely think we should bump the line number program header
version number for a change like this.