From davea42@earthlink.net  Tue Sep  4 14:16:03 2007
From: davea42@earthlink.net (David Anderson)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:16:03 -0700
Subject: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF Issue 070519.1
Message-ID: <46DD68A3.4030907@earthlink.net>

Re: DWARF Issue 070519.1 <ShowIssue.php?issue=070519.1>

The phrase


times the number_of_operations (or one, if it is zero) from the header.

should be written 


times the number_of_operations (or one, if number_of_operations is zero) from the header.


to avoid any confusion about what 'it' is (yes normal english antecedent rules
would lead the careful reader to understand what 'it' refers to, but IMO it's better
to be explicit).
DavidA.




From davea42@earthlink.net  Tue Sep  4 14:29:36 2007
From: davea42@earthlink.net (David Anderson)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:29:36 -0700
Subject: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF Issue 070519.1
Message-ID: <46DD6BD0.3050305@earthlink.net>

Re: DWARF Issue 070519.1 <ShowIssue.php?issue=070519.1>


9.  number_of_operations
      This value is the number of operations contained in an instruction.
      /For conventional processors, this may be zero or one.  For VLIW
      processors which have multiple operations in each instruction, this
      value is the number of operations in each instruction./

  10. operation_sizes (array of ubyte)
      There are number_of_opeations entries in this array.  Each entry 
      gives the size of the corresponding operation in bits.  Operations
      are ordered within the instruction by increasing machine address.  


'operations' not opeations.

It's not entirely clear if the 'array of ubyte'   would have zero 
entries if number_of_operations
is zero.  One would think so, but IMO it should be said.

It's not clear why 'array of ubyte' is better than 'array of uleb' (one 
assumes
that for known processors these would have the same representation bits).

DavidA.



From davea42@earthlink.net  Tue Sep  4 14:35:54 2007
From: davea42@earthlink.net (David Anderson)
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 07:35:54 -0700
Subject: [Dwarf-Discuss] DWARF Issue 070519.1
Message-ID: <46DD6D4A.6030300@earthlink.net>

Re: DWARF Issue 070519.1 <ShowIssue.php?issue=070519.1>

I would think that the proposal allows one to reproduce exactly the current
Itanium-standard-effect (albeit with the new table setup) and
I think we would want words showing the examples before approval
so the new examples (Itanium and Xtensa) could be part of a new appendix 
entry.

We'd thus have two quite different ways to produce Itanium line tables
(I'm not objecting, just think it needs pointing out in the example for 
Itanium).

DavidA.




