dblaikie added a comment. In D138597#3954269 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D138597#3954269>, @probinson wrote:
> Hmmm I might be inclined to emit 17 and 20 only under not-strict-DWARF for > v5, although it makes the logic more complicated. The codes have been > allocated but AFAICT the website doesn't have the new codes listed (I looked > at http://wiki.dwarfstd.org/index.php/DWARF_Language_Support which doesn't > even have all the v5 codes yet). I think they're up here: https://dwarfstd.org/Languages.php (linked from the dwarfstd.org front page "DWARF V5 Language Codes and Requests") > @aprantl do you have an opinion on this? I tend to lean to the pedantic side > on this kind of thing, but I'm persuadable. Yeah, I've certainly got mixed feelings - maybe we don't pick up these after-release language codes, and instead produce the new language encoding (which separates language from version) as an extension, alongside the old/in-the-dwarfv5-spec-document codes? So that a DWARFv5 consumer that contains only the DWARFv5-spec-document functionality and not the new codes, and a newer consumer can read the new parts. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D138597/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D138597 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
