>
> Actually, it would help my process if you would announce at each meeting
> what language names and their corresponding issue numbers were processed in
> the prior period. The point is to get that information into the Minutes. No
> discussion needed, just an announcement. Actually if that
>
>
> >DW_LANG_HIP/DW_LNAME_HIP was assigned first, but for some reason, the
> list was out of order, so when I assigned >DW_LNAME_Assembly, it looked
> like 0x001c was the last code assigned. I think it would be safer to
> reassign >DW_LNAME_Assembly as 0x0029.
>
> I think it would be safer to
Cary,
>DW_LANG_HIP/DW_LNAME_HIP was assigned first, but for some reason, the list
was out of order, so when I assigned >DW_LNAME_Assembly, it looked like
0x001c was the last code assigned. I think it would be safer to reassign
>DW_LNAME_Assembly as 0x0029.
I think it would be safer to just leave
Cary,
Actually, it would help my process if you would announce at each meeting
what language names and their corresponding issue numbers were processed in
the prior period. The point is to get that information into the Minutes. No
discussion needed, just an announcement. Actually if that
>
>
> It appears that DW_LNAME_HIP, proposed in 230120.4, never got
> incorporated into the DWARF working document (so there is no duplication).
> Perhaps because the Issue status is "Code Assigned" rather than Approved.
> That status really only applies to the V5 code assignment actually.
>
>
> It appears that DW_LNAME_HIP, proposed in 230120.4, never got
> incorporated into the DWARF working document (so there is no duplication).
> Perhaps because the Issue status is "Code Assigned" rather than Approved.
> That status really only applies to the V5 code assignment actually.
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2024, at 5:46 AM, Ron Brender wrote:
>
> It appears that DW_LNAME_HIP, proposed in 230120.4, never got incorporated
> into the DWARF working document (so there is no duplication). Perhaps because
> the Issue status is "Code Assigned" rather than Approved. That status really
>
It appears that DW_LNAME_HIP, proposed in 230120.4, never got incorporated
into the DWARF working document (so there is no duplication). Perhaps
because the Issue status is "Code Assigned" rather than Approved. That
status really only applies to the V5 code assignment actually.
Anyway, I'll fix
