>>>>> "Jakub" == Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
Jakub> Ok, so how about this way (as DWARF4 modifications, of course for Jakub> DWARF5 proposal GNU_ would be gone and the ops would have different Jakub> codes): Thanks very much for writing it up this way. I think it is very important that all our DWARF extensions be well-documented. Jakub> 6.3.1.6 Defining new opcodes and operands Jakub> The second operand starts with an unsigned LEB128 encoded number Jakub> of operands and for each of the operands there is one byte, Jakub> containing a form encoding how the corresponding operand is Jakub> encoded. It seems to me that DW_FORM_flag_present is not useful here. Jakub> Each so defined opcode is valid for subsequent entries until the Jakub> terminating entry with type code 0, including any sequences Jakub> included from those entries using Jakub> DW_MACINFO_GNU_transparent_include. Opcodes defined using this Jakub> entry in a chain included through Jakub> DW_MACINFO_GNU_transparent_include isn't valid in the parent Jakub> sequence after the DW_MACINFO_GNU_transparent_include entry that Jakub> included it though. I think you can remove this second sentence. It is implied by the first one. Tom
