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: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:32:03 -0500
- 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> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602282126040.9196@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:51:24PM -0500, Wu Zhou wrote:
>
> 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. :-)
I think they're close enough to display for now; I spoke with Paul
Brook and there shouldn't be any trouble changing them if we want to.
Eli, I agree that it would be reasonable to ignore them; but I don't
think there's any particularly easy way to do it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery