> > Yeah. Strings are more expensive than just numbers (which can be done > through DW_FORM_implicit_const) and for strings you'd need some agreed way > how to compare what is newer and what is older. > strverscmp, rpmvercmp, ... (many choices, what is the right segmented > string > comparison)? >
For an attribute that is used maybe once per compilation unit, I don't think the space cost is all that significant. But specifying how to compare dotted strings is tricky. We could just require the language to use zero-padded segments, like "003.006.007" so that the strings can simply be compared lexically. > If you have a language that uses more than 2 digit minor or patchlevel > versions, either you need to stay at 99 or when adding the language > go for VVVMMMPPP versioning scheme instead. > Once a version scheme is assigned, it's not that simple to change it. We'd have to impose a requirement that in moving from one scheme to another, the producer guarantees that newer versions always compare greater than earlier versions (e.g., moving from VVMMPP to a hypothetical VVVMMMPPP would work as long as VVV > 0). -cary
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
