This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support
- From: Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:24 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602240250300.7628@localhost.localdomain> <uek1t9nu6.fsf@gnu.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602262204560.9819@localhost.localdomain> <u64n0qc0l.fsf@gnu.org> <20060228135310.GA25487@nevyn.them.org> <u1wxnqmnf.fsf@gnu.org>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:53:10 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > Normally we try to honor the type names in debug info.
>
> If they make sense, sure. If they don't, I don't think we should
> blindly follow them.
I did some comparison between g77 and gfortran. In the aspect of the
compiler-generated DW_TAG_base_type, g77 uses "byte", "word" and "integer"
for "integer*1", "integer*2" and "integer*4" respectively. And gfortran
seems to adopt a new mechanism, it uses "int1", "int2" and "int4"
respectively. So it might also make some sense. At lease the debugger
user can guess the meaning from these words. :-)
> > If int4 is a bogus name for a type in Fortran, then this debug info
> > is bogus - gfortran should be fixed.
>
> I agree, but at least one version of gfortran that uses int4 is
> already out there, so I suggest that GDB handles that as we think it's
> right.
>