>>>>> "Devang" == Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Devang> This version removes internal radar numbers and replaces s/ Devang> DW_AT_APPLE.../DW_AT_GNU... I read this. I'm not anywhere near an expert in dwarf or anything related to this proposal, so please bear with me if I say something dumb :-). I do have a few questions and concerns. * Why put the optimization diary into the object file? Why not just have -Wdiary and print it along with all the warnings? (I'm sure there's an answer to this, it would just be nice if it were in the document...) * DW_AT_GNU_OD_cmd - it seems strange for this to be defined in terms of text highlighting. Why have a separate code here for "dead code" instead of just marking a text region and having a new _msg value meaning "dead code"? * DW_AT_GNU_OD_category The last value is 0x0000 0016. That seems wrong, I think it should end in 0010. What are "action trails"? Why is the action bit needed? The example in the text seems wrong, since there is an explicit _msg value for "function is inlined", and multiple values for why a function might not be inlined. How would the user find out what parameter is referred to by a parameter manipulation hint? I don't see where this is recorded. * DW_AT_GNU_OD_msg I presume that GCC will somehow maintain the canonical values here. It seems important that there be a central process for registering these so that weird divergences don't crop up over time. Also perhaps a "vendor extension" range should be specified? In any case, the mechanisms here ought to be documented. A nit: * The first example is oddly formatted. The blue region encompasses an entire comment, but the salmon (? nice color choice :) region stops before the '*/'. And... surely the diary won't be marking text regions corresponding to comments anyway? I feel like I'm probably misunderstanding the point of this highlighting. Tom
