Hello, Mark, On Aug 25, 2020, Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 01:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> it would seem to >> make more sense to adopt and promote the proposed extension, >> implemented in =incompat5 in GCC, but it would need some >> implementation work in consumers to at least ignore the extension. > Is that what is described in: > http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/papers/sfn/dwarf6-sfn-lvu.txt > Does it match the proposal in: > http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=170427.1 Yes, the implementation of incompat5 is supposed to match the enhancement to DWARF proposed in this issue. > Should we try to introduce your extending loclists proposal: > http://www.dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=170427.2 If it makes sense to you, sure. I think it could be useful for loclist compression, besides adding extensibility to an unusually rigid part of DWARF specs. I'm not attached to this particular formulation, though, and I'm not aware of any implementations thereof. I only felt the need for extending loclists and found myself severely constrained. > The main issue is that there is no formal way of extending the > loclists. *nod* Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
