Yeah, I'm good either way - describing the artificiality of object_pointer
as optional, or removing that entirely & leaving that up to consumers to
use as needed. I think I'd lean towards removing the wording & leaving it
up to users to decide what's artificial and what isn't.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025
+1, thanks for bringing this up, Tom - seems like just specing it as class
"constant" would be fine. And in fact in table 7.5 it's already specified
that way...
So might just be a matter of removing the leb128 wording from the quoted
area?
@Cary Coutant could we get an issue filed for this?
On M
# DW_AT_object_pointer: clarify wording around implicit versus
explicit object parameters
## Background
With C++23 we got the ability to explicitly spell out in source the
object parameter of a class method [1]. The object parameter for such
methods is not compiler-generated and is explicitly nam
