Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

On 12/1/23 16:17, David Blaikie wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:43 PM David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss > wrote: On 12/1/23 05:24, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote: > My reasoning is that the reason why we are running out of vendor

Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:43 PM David Anderson via Dwarf-discuss < dwarf-discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org> wrote: > On 12/1/23 05:24, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote: > > My reasoning is that the reason why we are running out of vendor defined > > space is that within in the various vendor spaces

Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

On 12/1/23 05:24, Ben Woodard via Dwarf-discuss wrote: My reasoning is that the reason why we are running out of vendor defined space is that within in the various vendor spaces the encoding space is consumed by legacy extensions that: 1) were never implemented publicly 2) were implemented but

Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

> > 5. Re 1.3.13: Blaming "reduced tool compatibility" on the skipability of > unknown constructs seems a huge and unjustified claim. I don't buy it. > > In most cases, I can see your point but in this case I cannot. To me this > seems obvious. > > Of course a consumer should be able to skip over

Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

Sorry that it has taken me so long to get back around to this. Holidays vacation and other work. On 11/15/23 11:19, Ron Brender wrote: Ben, This is a good first proposal for a DWARF Extension Registry.  Following are a few initial reactions... 1. I don't understand why this proposal is an

Re: [Dwarf-discuss] Enhancement: DWARF Extension Registry

Added as new issue 231110.1 . -cary On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 1:52 PM Ben Woodard wrote: > DWARF Extension Registry > Background > > The DWARF standard has always had the wisdom to acknowledge the need for > Vendor Extensibility. Section 1.3.13