On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:43 PM David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
> On 12/1/23 05:24, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote: > > My reasoning is that the reason why we are running out of vendor defined > > space is that within in the various vendor spaces the encoding space is > > consumed by legacy extensions that: > > 1) were never implemented publicly > > 2) were implemented but are no longer in use because the compilers that > > generated them have been abandoned > > 3) were in use but have been incorporated into the standard version of > > DWARF. > > > > I feel like clearing those out by drawing a line in the sand and saying > > that extensions which existed in previous versions of DWARF do not > > necessarily mean the same thing once the new version of DWARF is > > released, should clear out the legacy cruft such that there should be > > sufficient encoding space for new producer extensions. > > > > While clearing-out of attributes etc that were never implemented > makes sense, I think the rest of this goes way too far in > re-using things. There is a distinct danger of making > it impossible for a consumer to read DWARF3 once DWARF6 is complete. > That seems to me to be a bad idea. Unappealing. > Not sure I follow this - you could still read DWARF3 as DWARF3 no matter what changes in DWARF6, I think? Could you flesh out what you're thinking here/how DWARF6 completion could (if we took some of these suggestions) cause DWARF3 to be impossible to consume?
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
