Thanks for filing
Mind updating the issue with the latest proposal I attached earlier? I.e.,
we’ll just remove the wording in the current spec
Many thanks,
Michael
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 20:35 Cary Coutant wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:54 AM Michael Buch via Dwarf-discuss <
> dwarf-discu
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:54 AM Michael Buch via Dwarf-discuss <
dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote:
> # DW_AT_object_pointer: clarify wording around implicit versus
> explicit object parameters
Filed as Issue 250122.1:
https://dwarfstd.org/issues/250122.1.html
-cary
--
Dwarf-discuss mai
Filed as issue 250118.1:
https://dwarfstd.org/issues/250118.1.html
-cary
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:45 AM David Blaikie wrote:
> +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...
