[Dwarf-discuss] Bug / Corrections for DWARF-6 Draft (example for properties / differences to issue in tracker)

[Martin]

On 02/10/2026 02:27, Cary Coutant via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 12:52 AM Martin via Dwarf-discuss <dwarf- 
> discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org <mailto:dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org>> wrote:
> 
>     formal-param are direct child entities of DW_TAG_property_getter
> 
> 
> I think what you're saying is that the three formal parameters (with the 
> default value on the third) should be moved from the DW_TAG_subprogram 
> "GetValue" to the DW_TAG_property_getter.
> 
> Should the DW_TAG_subprogram "GetValue" also have those formal 
> parameters (but without the default_value)? I'm not sure if those were 
> assumed to lie under the ellipsis in the example in the original issue, 
> or if they're supposed to be omitted.
> 

Yes, they should be moved
- DW_TAG_property_getter =>
   - If any defaults are needed then this has DW_TAG_formal_parameter
   - Those DW_TAG_formal_parameter may have the DW_AT_default_value
- DW_TAG_subprogram also has DW_TAG_formal_parameter
   - But without DW_TAG_formal_parameter

The DW_TAG_subprogram  is the normal (as has always been) representation 
of the member function.
- As the member function does not have any defaults, then 
DW_TAG_subprogram  also does not have DW_AT_default_value.
- But the DW_TAG_subprogram has the DW_TAG_formal_parameter.
- The DW_TAG_subprogram does exist exactly as it would have without the 
DW_TAG_property

This is correctly described in


""" QUOTE 6.19 Property Entries BEGIN
A property may have one or several of DW_TAG_property_getter,
DW_TAG_property_setter, or DW_TAG_property_stored children to represent
the getter and setter (member) functions, or underlying storage. A
DW_TAG_property_stored child describes the Pascal-style stored accessor 
for a property.

Each of these tags have a DW_AT_property_forward attribute to refer to a 
(member) function declaration or a data member.

If they refer to a function, they may also have DW_TAG_formal_parameter 
children (matching the ones in the function)
""" QUOTE 6.19 Property Entries END

Last paragraph "if they refer": "they" = one of DW_TAG_property_getter,
DW_TAG_property_setter, ...




>     But in dwarf6-20260920-2248.pdf
>     D.19 Property Example
>     Page 415
>     ...
>       >     !
>       >     ! Indexed property
>       >     !
>       >     DW_TAG_subprogram ! function GetValue
>       >         DW_AT_accessibility(DW_ACCESS_private)
>       >         DW_AT_name("GetValue") ! (x: word; AIndex: Integer): char;
>       >         DW_AT_type(ref to char)
>       >         DW_TAG_formal_parameter ! implicit _this
>       >         DW_TAG_formal_parameter ! x (no default specified)
>       >         DW_TAG_formal_parameter ! AIndex
>       >             DW_AT_default_value !
>       >                 DW_OP_lit1 ! default index =1
>       >     ...
>       >     DW_TAG_property ! property Indexed[x: word]: char index 1
>       >         DW_AT_accessibility(DW_ACCESS_public)
>       >         DW_AT_name("Indexed")
>       >         DW_TAG_property_getter ! read GetValue;
>       >             DW_AT_property_forward(ref to GetValue)
> 
>     - The Getter refers to the Entry for the function GetValue
>     - The function GetValue has the default parameter
> 
> 
> I'm assuming you're pointing out that these are mistakes, not what it 
> should be, right?
> 
yes, I pointed out the mistakes.

All included example codes are copies of the mistakes found in the draft.