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 re
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`
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 (ju
# FORMs Implicit Const and Indirect
## BACKGROUND
In issue 221114.1 `DW_FORM_implicit_const` and `DW_FORM_indirect`
we corrected a mistake in DWARF5 that, in
very limited circumstances,
forced compilers to emit an abbrev section that could not
be scanned (to find abbrev codes) without chaos ens
