I've added this as DWARF Issue 230324.1. I'll report back after the
committee has reviewed it.
Thank you for your contribution!
-cary
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 1:21 PM Linder, Scott via Dwarf-discuss
wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> Background
> ==
>
> The vendor extension
Hi -
> I understand the desire for each particular vendor opcode to have a
> semantic meaning that is fixed throughout time. [...] Does this
> continue to be an goal for DWARF6? Whether or not this is true, we
> should make this explicit. If not, it would provide an opportunity
> for tool develo
I'm sorry Scott, I did not intend to hijack your proposal. In essence, I
was saying that I support a the registry part of your proposal below.
That has been one of the long time requests from the tool developers
that I work with.
On 3/24/23 13:21, Linder, Scott via Dwarf-discuss wrote:
[AMD O
[AMD Official Use Only - General]
Background
==
The vendor extension encoding space for DWARF expression operations
accommodates only 32 unique operations. In practice, the lack of a central
registry and a desire for backwards compatibility means vendor extensions are
never retired, even
