This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Problems while debugging fortran
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Carlos Eduardo Seo <cseo at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:30:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: Problems while debugging fortran
- References: <46FAD136.5030406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070926214619.GC9403@adacore.com> <471F70C0.3000206@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071024193336.GI11797@adacore.com> <20071024195719.GA16009@caradoc.them.org> <471FA810.6080506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <471FBF9E.5000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20071024220648.GL11797@adacore.com> <472098B2.5010605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <m3abq7ciu9.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20071025190627.GA4157@adacore.com>
Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore.com> writes:
> I agree with Jim's comment, but on the other hand, I propose a slightly
> different way of saying this:
>
> /* In Fortran programs compiled with XLF, the only way we have found
> so far to identify the main procedure is by using the fact that
> the calling convention is different from the other procedures:
> The DW_AT_calling_convention attribute is set to DW_CC_program.
>
> This is not the intent of this attribute as documented in the
> DWARF standard, but we haven't found any other distinctive
> characteristic of the main procedure, so we check the calling
> convention for Fortran compilation units. */
>
> I want to steer away from the concept of "entry point", because the
> main is not necessarily the entry point. For instance, in Ada, the
> entry point is distinct from the main procedure.
>
> Is Carlos Eduado's patch OK with the comment I suggest?
This would be fine with me, too.