On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 11:48 -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 06/18/2014 11:38 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > And a future version of DWARF might > > use the number for a completely different purpose. > > The issue you linked says this: > > Remove DW_TAG_mutable_type from Appendix A (Figure 17) > (Make sure not to reassign the number 0x3e to another tag. > Perhaps we should leave the table entry in there with > an "unused" marker in place of DW_TAG_mutable_type. > > So it seems they intend to leave that number out forever.
They might and that might be a good thing. Although I don't know of any producer that ever produced it since it was for a concept that didn't really exist in any language. Note that the extra comments didn't end up in the final spec. All that was officially done was remove the name. All I am proposing is we do the same since the name should never have been there in the first place. I'll add a comment instead saying the value is reserved. Cheers, Mark
