> > just const and volatile.
> > get the same signature for the same type from different compile units.
> qualifiers (or on a number of other qualifiers).
> are welcome to do so, but there is no requirement to do this.
DIE tree representations, the forced ordering cannot really be ignored.
> > I think what GCC does when constructing the DIE type trees is correct.
> > know which ordering is preferred across all compilation units up front.
> preferred order and use a matching equivalent when it generates DWARF.
situation, depending on what optimization you prefer.
> DWARF is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> That these both describe the same type in C/C++ is a language issue.
> > trees in the compile units.
> neutral, and, in particular, avoid hidden language dependencies.
> > issues, so it doesn't matter in which order the DIE chain is flattened.
> The deadline for DWARF Version 5 proposals passed long ago.
cleaner, more language independent way.