Yeah - I mostly don't mind it taking as long as it takes. Eleanor - is there something you're particularly interested in/waiting for/etc? At least for myself, speaking as a clang/llvm debug info maintainer, I'd be happy to see DWARFv6 prototyped there (with a "no stability guarantee" caveat, because the spec isn't finalized - so it'd be useful/applicable if you have use clang/lldb at matched revisions (or some arbitrary "safe revisions" even - if clang got out ahead of lldb in some incompatible ways) only) if you really want to experiment with new features, for instance.
In terms of moving the spec forward faster - if we think it's worth it, I'd consider more proactively discouraging/sidelining proposals that can be implemented using existing extension mechanisms & ask that those come back only with implementation experience as extensions (though I realize this comes at the cost of consuming more of the extension space, which is a bit limited in some areas). Prioritize things that create extension spaces and stuff that's fundamental shifts in the way DWARF is encoded. But I'm not sure those sort of changes are necessary/a major need right now. - Dave On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 7:10 AM Robinson, Paul via Dwarf-discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > Speaking only for myself: Questions about ETA seem reasonable, as the > interval between v4 and v5 was 6 years 8 months, and it has already been 6 > years 9 months since v5 was published. That said, the committee has never > worked to a specific timeline. > > > > There is indeed a fair amount of work left to be done by the committee, > some of which has had side discussions but not yet been formally proposed. > My impression (I haven’t tried to verify this) is that the committee took > longer than usual to get started on this round. Also we spent a fair amount > of time on organizational issues, which obviously would detract from time > spent on technical issues. The “change of administration” didn’t help > either. But I think we are back in the groove. > > > > Regarding time commitment, we meet one hour every other week, which is not > significantly different from the two hours per month that we met during > consideration of the previous two versions. On the other hand, the > committee is noticeably larger than it used to be, which can mean that > discussions take longer. Perhaps we should increase the meeting time to get > through the backlog more efficiently, and make up for lost time. > > > > --paulr > > > > *From:* Dwarf-discuss <dwarf-discuss-bounces+paul.robinson= > sony....@lists.dwarfstd.org> *On Behalf Of *Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss > *Sent:* Sunday, November 12, 2023 10:31 AM > *To:* Eleanor Bartle <elea...@eleanor-nb.com> > *Cc:* dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > *Subject:* Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Question: ETA? > > > > I’ve asked this question personally many times directly to members of the > executive committee. The overall answer seems to be “when we are done”. The > thing is, there are quite a few proposals sitting in the DWARF issue queue > that have yet to be discussed AT ALL in the official DWARF committee > meeting and the current meeting is only one hour every other week. Plus, > there are a rather large number of additional proposals which are quite > extensive which are still being discussed outside of the DWARF committee > meeting and haven’t yet made it to the DWARF issue queue. E.g. > https://github.com/ccoutant/dwarf-locations > <https://github.com/ccoutant/dwarf-locations> which is the > standardization effort for > https://www.llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUDwarfExtensionsForHeterogeneousDebugging.html > <https://www.llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUDwarfExtensionsForHeterogeneousDebugging.html> > I > also have 3 more that I’m incubating which haven’t seen the light of day > yet because of some of this other work. > > > > Anyway, before the change in administration, it seemed like we were > rushing to get DWARF6 out the door with just minor corrections and > revisions. Now, it seems like DWARF6 is going to have many more significant > changes in it and it is going to take a while. Personally, I’m quite glad > for this because I feel as though a lot more work needs to be done. Before > the change in administration, I felt DWARF6 was being rushed. I would say > check in again in 6 months and see where we are then. > > > > In the mean time, there is a > https://snapshots.sourceware.org/dwarfstd/dwarf-spec/ which is the > current working draft and keep an eye on the Issue queue. > > > > -ben > > > > On Nov 12, 2023, at 1:49 AM, Eleanor Bartle via Dwarf-discuss < > dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > > > > Is there any plan for a time to release version 6? If not a time, then a > condition? Say "2025" or "some time in the next year" or "when no new > proposals are accepted for three months" or "when two independent > implementations are fully compliant". > > -- > Dwarf-discuss mailing list > Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss > > -- > Dwarf-discuss mailing list > Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org > https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss >
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
