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
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 06:25:56AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:38:29 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> >
> > > Perhaps I'm confused: isn't "int4" a 32-bit integer? I thought it
> > > was, but if I was mistaken, my apologies for the noise.
> >
> > It's not reserved at all in the input to the compiler - it might be
> > something different than a type, or it might be the name of a record
> > type (whatever the correct name for that is).
>
> I'm still not sure I understand, but I think you do agree that this is
> a 32-bit integer. In that case, I maintain that we should display
> "integer(4)", not "int4".
Sorry, I am not expressing myself well.
The fact that it is named "int4" in debug output doesn't mean that it
is a 32-bit integer. The fact that it is a 32-bit integer, in turn,
may mean that we could choose to ignore its name if that was
worthwhile.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery