Re: Patch for pascal-dynamic arrays

[Joost van der Sluis <joost at cnoc dot nl>]

On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 16:17 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:59:34 +0200, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> > Attached it the new patch.
> 
> Please write GNU style ChangeLog entry for it.  I am sorry I did not write the
> entries myself in the log (as a partial excuse it was not reviewed by anyone
> that time).
> 
> 
> > I tested it and I have no regressions anymore.
> 
> Getting a lot of regressions included below.

I had no Fortran installed.

> * Some fortran failures only happen with `ulimit -v 500000'.
> * Are the new Pascal testcase FAILures expected?  If a more recent fpc is
>   required the testcase should XFAIL, not FAIL.

Yes, they need a new fpc-version (2.3.1 or higher).

> > @@ -197,6 +198,13 @@ struct value
> >    /* If value is a variable, is it initialized or not.  */
> >    int initialized;
> >  
> > +  CORE_ADDR data_address;
> > +
> > +  char calc_length;
> > +  long length;
> > +  char checked_dynamics;
> > +  long lower_bound;
> > +  long upper_bound;
> 
> 
> Still I do not like duplicating the information already present in `struct
> main_type'.  I find right you have changed passing some `struct type *' to
> `struct value *' instead but that new `struct value' just could use
> copy_type_recursive on that linked `struct type'.

I didn't thought about that. In principle, that information should be
removed from 'struct main_type', since the lower_bound, upper_bound and
length aren't defined for plain structures, without any address set. But
that would be far to intrusive. But I wanted to do it as 'clean' as
possible, that's why the duplication.

I'll look if I can fix it without the duplication as you suggested.

Thanks for looking at it,

Joost