>> For things like new tags, attributes, language codes, etc., we have >> occasionally given out assurances that the assigned numbers were safe >> to use once discussion was complete and the issue was accepted. In >> most cases, it's then OK to use these without bumping the DWARF >> version number, since clients are supposed to be able to tolerate >> unknown values (although binutils is a notable exception). For >> DW_LANG_Go, we did in fact issue such an assurance. > > The DWARF Committee does give any assurances that any proposal will be > accepted, or that any proposal will be accepted without modification. > As Ron pointed out, only a released DWARF specification can be > considered authoritative. No assurance was given with regard to any > proposal for adoption in DWARF Version 5, nor has any ever been given > prior to previous versions of the DWARF standard being released.
I didn't say that we gave assurances in advance that proposals would be accepted, or accepted without modification. I said that on occasion -- once we had discussed, accepted, and closed the issue -- we had given an assurance that the assigned numbers were firm. DW_LANG_Go, as I recall, was one of these cases. -cary _______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
