* high-level checks
-** DW_AT_byte_size at DW_TAG_pointer_type
+** DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer
+ http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00869.html
+
+** const values vs. addresses
+ http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00816.html
+
+** dwarflint --stats
+ http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00849.html
+
+** expected trees/attributes
+ This is about the check_expected_trees check. All attributes are
+ marked optional. In future, we need to go through the standard, or
+ employ some other source of knowledge, and adjust the optionality
+ level.
+
+ Also the approach we are taking now is no good. It ignores changes
+ in DWARF revisions and doesn't tackle the expected children case at
+ all. It seems that what we need is some sort of XPath-like
+ approach to matching subgraphs. Each time one of the queries
+ triggered, a check would be done for expected "neighborhood" of the
+ node. Such a query might reach far from the original node,
+ spanning layers of parent/child or die/neighbor relationship.
+
+*** DW_AT_byte_size at DW_TAG_pointer_type
+
+ That's from my conversation with Mark:
<mjw> machatap: I was surprised to see all these DW_TAG_pointer_type and
DW_TAG_reference_type having an explicit DW_AT_byte_size
<mjw> OK, so you also think that is strange. good. I might not be crazy after
all :) [2010-09-06 17:01]
<machatap> well, it's certainly not per the standard
-
-** DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer
- http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00869.html
-
-** const values vs. addresses
- http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00816.html
-
-** dwarflint --stats
- http://www.mail-archive.com/elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org/msg00849.html