[Dwarf-Discuss] DW_TAG_base_type must have DW_AT_name?

[Roland McGrath]

> It is not clear it works in the other direction, omitting things
> at the discretion of the producer even when the standard uses
> language such as "this HAS that."

I agree as to the standardsese lawyer reading.  But the reality is that
nobody really ever treats DWARF as being that kind of normative, and
reading it that way just makes you do things that nobody wants or cares
about.  A simple paragraph added to 1.3 or someplace like that could
clarify it with an explicit permission not to do utterly useless things
that are motivated solely by overly-pedantic reading of the spec.


Thanks,
Roland