On 5/9/22 16:00, Todd Allen via Dwarf-Discuss wrote:
I suppose, if you didn't want to submit an issue, another solution would be to require the necessary tags & attributes in the ABI itself. We already expect ABI documents to provide things like register values, CFI initial values, and some more esoteric stuff (augmentations, non-standard endianity & isa). An ABI that required descriptions in ABI-specific situations like these two seems reasonable to me. And it places no burden on compilers for other ABI's.
This creates the situation where there are two definitions for a DWARF attribute, one in an ABI and a different one in the DWARF Spec. We want to avoid situations where one producer says "I'm following DWARF" and another "I'm following the ABI". That makes interoperability difficult.
The information you mention in an ABI is not in the DWARF Spec. -- Michael Eager _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
