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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Wu Zhou <woodzltc at cn dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:53:44 +0200
- 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> <20060301043203.GA17621@nevyn.them.org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:32:03 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 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. :-)
>
> I think they're close enough to display for now
``For now''? Are we in a hurry to release GDB or something?
> I spoke with Paul Brook and there shouldn't be any trouble changing
> them if we want to.
But what about the versions that are already there? We want GDB to
behave consistently, even of gfortran does not.
> 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.
??? Won't something as simple as
if (strcmp ("int4", ...) == 0)
printf_filtered ("integer*4");
do? What am I missing?