[Dwarf-Discuss] GNU extensions - inconsistent?

[David Anderson]

I'm trying to make the dwarf.h I release complete (well, more complete) 
by keeping up with
GNU extensions, but what I see is confusing.

>From gcc-4.6.2/include/dwarf2.h

    /* Thread-safety annotations.
        See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ThreadSafetyAnnotation .  */
     DW_AT_GNU_guarded_by    = 0x2108,
     DW_AT_GNU_pt_guarded_by = 0x2109,
     DW_AT_GNU_guarded       = 0x210a,
     DW_AT_GNU_pt_guarded    = 0x210b,
     DW_AT_GNU_locks_excluded = 0x210c,
     DW_AT_GNU_exclusive_locks_required = 0x210d,
     DW_AT_GNU_shared_locks_required = 0x210e,
     /* One-definition rule violation detection.
        See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DwarfSeparateTypeInfo .  */
     DW_AT_GNU_odr_signature = 0x210f,
     /* Template template argument name.
        See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TemplateParmsDwarf .  */
     DW_AT_GNU_template_name = 0x2110,

But http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TemplateParmsDwarf says DW_AT_GNU_template_name
is x2108   !     And http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ThreadSafetyAnnotation says 
nothing
about the DWARF extension values at all, it proposes values in the 
standard range, not
the extensions range.

I notice that gdb-7.3.1/include/dwarf2.h  matches that gcc header except 
the gdb version
has a few extra values,
DW_TAG_GNU_call_site etc.

I'll take the gdb one as governing, for the moment.

Any comments on this would be most welcome.
Thanks in advance.
David Anderson

-- 
It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour!  -- Macy's