Thanks. I've added this as Issue 250422.1. https://dwarfstd.org/issues/250422.1.html
Would we want to delete the following paragraph? Quite possibly yes, there is little reason to suggest repetition is a good idea. >If the actual attribute form is itself `DW_FORM_indirect`, >the indirection repeats. There may be one or more >occurrences of `DW_FORM_indirect` in sequence until a >`non-DW_FORM_indirect` form is reached. The sequence of >`DW_FORM_indirect` forms does not have any effect other than >to use up space. I support removing that paragraph. There is no good reason to support a chain of indirects, and I think it's just asking for trouble. -cary On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:23 PM David Anderson <dave...@linuxmail.org> wrote: > On 4/23/25 11:25, Cary Coutant wrote: > > David, > > > > As part of this, we rearrange > > the references from > > `DW_FORM_implicit_const`, `DW_FORM_addrx`, and `DW_FORM_indirect` > > to be listed in the order > > `DW_FORM_addrx`, `DW_FORM_implicit_const`, and `DW_FORM_indirect`. > > > > > > `DW_FORM_addrx` is not part of the proposal so > > we keep it separate (just preceding) > > `DW_FORM_implicit_const` and `DW_FORM_indirect`. > > > > > > Did you mean DW_FORM_addrx_offset where you wrote DW_FORM_addrx here? > > > > -cary > > Oops. Yes. DW_FORM_addrx_offset. New in DWARF6. > DavidA > > -- > Space is to place as eternity is to time. > -- Joseph Joubert >
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss
