This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fort_dyn_array: add basic fortran dyn array support


> I don't think I will be able to fix the failures on the mentioned
> hosts/targets before you
> create the branch, as I need to replicate the environment on my end first to
> start investigating.
> Therefore I suggest to revert the change for now. Sorry if this caused any
> inconvenience.

We need a good reason for reverting (Eg: regressions in pre-existing
features). From what i read below:

> Bernhard and I we have investigated the issues reported. Issues were
> reproduced by using the newest GCC.  Looks like the issues are independent
> from the target at first sight.
> 
> Issues could be divided into 3 categories:
> 
> 1.  Issue root causes to GCC 5.x and Fortran "associated" intrinsic.
> Compiler is not reporting the âAssociated property correctly. (see test case
> 1)
> Affected tests:
> gdb.fortran/vla-ptype.exp: ptype pvla not initialized
> gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print undefined pvla
> gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print non-associated &pvla
> gdb.fortran/vla-value.exp: print undefined pvla(1,3,8)
> gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: evaluate not associated vla
> gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: create local variable pvla2_not_associated
> gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: info type variable pvla2_not_associated
> 
> 2.  Test issues. Test take into account that array created is initialized by
> default. Initialization depends on the compiler also Fortran standard does
> not state the need for initialization.
> Affected tests:
> gdb.mi/mi-vla-fortran.exp: evaluate allocated vla
> 
> 3.  GCC or GDB error. Breakpoint is completely off, breakpoint on return
> line is triggered before the execution of the functions body. Deeper
> investigation should be done to define the real issue.
> Affected tests:
> gdb.cp/vla-cxx.exp

Are these regressions? Or just showing that the new feature are
not working well with the newer GCC?

I fear that, reverting central changes at this stage could
destabilize the branch, and therefore we need to be very careful
as to what we do.

-- 
Joel


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]