As the original proposer, I say, Hear hear. The main reasons to choose
that particular scheme were:
- producers that use type sections must already have an MD5 implementation;
- Visual Studio debugger integration uses it.
But a more flexible scheme allowing other schemes would be a Good Thing.
--p
FWIW I fully agree with this line of reasoning. I was going to propose
it as well (though not as comperhensively) since we may decide that we
want to use something other than "the low 64-bits of an md5 hash" to
represent the file. Speaking of which, the particular hash and such
should be explicitly
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 08:32 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> I'll pass your comments on to the DWARF Committee.
Thanks. I also filed a comment for enhancement as proposal for DWARF5
now through http://dwarfstd.org/Comment.php to make sure the idea
doesn't get lost (and since the deadline for new DWAR
On 03/31/14 10:59, Mark Wielaard wrote:
My interpretation comes from 2.6 Location Descriptions, item 1. Single
location descriptions which says "They are sufficient for describing the
location of any object as long as its lifetime is either static or the
same as the lexical block that owns it, a
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 21:06 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> At first I didn't file an enhancement request since there are probably
> no changes in how to interpret the meaning of DWARF attributes. But for
> debuggers it is needed information to be able to correctly handle
> expressions for the user r
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 08:39 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 03/30/14 14:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > I was reading the DWARF5 proposal Issue 130121.1 Default Location List
> > Entry http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=130121.1 and was wondering
> > how to interpret the phrase "(provided that a
On 03/30/14 14:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
I was reading the DWARF5 proposal Issue 130121.1 Default Location List
Entry http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=130121.1 and was wondering
how to interpret the phrase "(provided that address is within the
containing module)" from the introduction.
On 03/28/14 15:18, Cary Coutant wrote:
The proposed DWARF5 suggestion "dynamic properties of types: reference
interpretation" http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100805.1 says:
Accepted with modification -- Sept. 18, 2012
The second bullet in Section 2.19, pg. 40, reads as
On 03/28/14 06:37, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
Reading the DWARF5 proposal debug_aranges and address-less CUs
http://dwarfstd.org/ShowIssue.php?issue=100430.2 I saw it said:
"Rejected -- Recommend adding this as "best practice" on the wiki."
I rather see this in the standard as non-normative text
