On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 12:09:43AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=161031.2 > got approved today, so DWARF5 is changing and the various DW_UT_* kinds > will no longer have the same size of the headers. So, > DW_UT_compile/DW_UT_partial shrinks by 12/16 bytes (padding 1 and padding 2 > is removed; 16 bytes for 64-bit DWARF), DW_UT_type remains the same, > DW_UT_skeleton/DW_UT_split_compile shrink by 4/8 bytes (padding 2 is > removed). For DW_UT_* kinds consumers don't understand, the first 3 fields > (length, version and ut kind) are required to be present and the only > sensible action is to skip the whole unit (using length field).
OK, so I assume my alternative proposal to encode which fields are used in the unit type field got rejected? http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=161130.5 (Any word on other proposals? They don't seem to have been updated on the website yet.) Was anything said about what consumers should do when the version is unknown? Is the length field still valid and can the unit be skipped or is it game over? Is any of the range of unit type values reserved for vendor extensions? > Jan/Mark, are you going to adjust GDB/elfutils etc. correspondingly? Of course. I was already anticipating this would change. Thanks, Mark
