Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jun 7, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Devang Patel wrote:
Is it constructive (and appropriate? but hey I'm DWARF newbie myself)
to declare
DWARF standard limited and full of mistakes ?
No, I am saying that dwarf2 is supposed to be stable and adding stuff
is not likely
going to happen that often unlike optimizations.
No, you said it has limitations and it is mistake to allow vendor
extensions in DWARF.
Read proposal again. There is one thing in proposal that allows to
handle similar
situation for diary messages in nicer way.
What look funny instead of looking right?
Optimization diary has its own version number. When new messages
are included version number is updated. This allows its consumer to
take appropriate action and not choke. Appropriate action may be, ignore
entire diary or ignore unknown messages or something else...
Do you ever wonder why errno is number and not error string ?
And how many times new error numbers get added? Almost never,
compared to adding
a new optimization which can happen any time now.
Look at the problem this way, if it does not change that much often
then yes it should
be a number, otherwise a message string is better.
Can we have standard numbers for file names now, then?
OK, I opened the wrong window and this has no relation to this
discussion. Lets close
and stay focused :)
Since you chose to not continue discuss regarding your three questions
(overlapping
numbers, no space in extension range and tools mismatch), I guess I've
answered all your questions.
-
Devang
