Cary, >DW_LANG_HIP/DW_LNAME_HIP was assigned first, but for some reason, the list was out of order, so when I assigned >DW_LNAME_Assembly, it looked like 0x001c was the last code assigned. I think it would be safer to reassign >DW_LNAME_Assembly as 0x0029.
I think it would be safer to just leave well-enough alone. I just updated the document to match the website (and make DW_LNAME_HIP = 0x0029). So any change causes work for me. Similarly it creates work for anyone who is actually trying to use code DW_LNAME_Assembly. Why bother? Ron On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:25 PM Cary Coutant <ccout...@gmail.com> wrote: > It appears that DW_LNAME_HIP, proposed in 230120.4, never got >> incorporated into the DWARF working document (so there is no duplication). >> Perhaps because the Issue status is "Code Assigned" rather than Approved. >> That status really only applies to the V5 code assignment actually. >> >> Anyway, I'll fix it for V6. >> >> The next available code is 0x0027. What makes you think the code should >> be 0x0029? >> >> >> I was looking at https://dwarfstd.org/languages-v6.html where the last >> assigned langiage is DW_LNAME_Hylo 0x0028. >> > > DW_LANG_HIP/DW_LNAME_HIP was assigned first, but for some reason, the list > was out of order, so when I assigned DW_LNAME_Assembly, it looked like > 0x001c was the last code assigned. I think it would be safer to reassign > DW_LNAME_Assembly as 0x0029. > > -cary > > > >
-- Dwarf-discuss mailing list Dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org https://lists.dwarfstd.org/mailman/listinfo/dwarf-discuss