dblaikie added a comment. >>> @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. > > Except the new LNAME codes aren't 1-1 with the old codes
I'm not sure that'd be a problem? They're in different attributes, etc, such that they wouldn't be read by an old consumer without explicit support for them. > and aren't published anywhere. They're published on the website too: https://dwarfstd.org/LanguagesV6.php 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
