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 Wed, 2013-09-25 at 09:16 -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 09/25/13 03:38, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Asking because I was wondering if it would make sense to propose
> > DW_LANG_C11 (ISO/IEC 9899:2011) for DWARF5?
>
> Yes, if there are differences in meaning for DWARF attributes which
> depend on
On 09/25/13 03:38, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
I saw the following issue which proposed DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 and
DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11. It appears to have been accepted for DWARF4
according to this page:
http://www.dwarfstd.org/Issues.php?type=closed3
But apparently didn't make it into the actua
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw the following issue which proposed DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_03 and
> DW_LANG_C_plus_plus_11. It appears to have been accepted for DWARF4
> according to this page:
> http://www.dwarfstd.org/Issues.php?type=closed3
> But apparently did
