On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 11:48 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
On 06/18/2014 11:38 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> And a future version of DWARF might
> use the number for a completely different purpose.
The issue you linked says this:
Remove DW_TAG_mutable_type from Appendix A (Figure 17)
(Make sure not to reassign the number 0x3e to another tag.
Perhaps we should leave the table entry in there with
an "unused" marker in place of DW_TAG_mutable_type.
So it seems they intend to leave that number out forever.
They might and that might be a good thing. Although I don't know of any
producer that ever produced it since it was for a concept that didn't
really exist in any language. Note that the extra comments didn't end up
in the final spec. All that was officially done was remove the name. All
I am proposing is we do the same since the name should never have been
there in the first place. I'll add a comment instead saying the value is