Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support

[Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:24 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>
> > cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > 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.  :-) 
> 
> So you now think that it is not a good idea to display "integer*4"
> instead of "int4"?  I thought you previously agreed with me that the
> former was better, from the user point of view.

Eli, I am still with you.  The former is surely better for the user.  
But I am not sure yet which should be fixed, the compiler or the 
debugger.

I proposed another method, which depends on TYPE_CODE (type) and 
TYPE_LENGTH (type) to determine what to be displayed at last. How do you 
think on that?  (I sent out that proposal a while ago)

> GDB is a debugger.  If it were a program to display DWARF-2 debug
> info, then it should have displayed exactly what is written in there.
> But as a debugger, it should display something that is sensible to the
> user of a debugger, i.e. it needs to speak the programming language of
> the source, not DWARF.

Good stand.  I agree with you on this too.  :-)

Regards
- Wu Zhou