Re: [RFA] Patch for supportinf DW_TAG_module / FORTRAN modules

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:31:15PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> If I understand this patch correctly, it stores a Fortran module in
> GDB's symbol table as if it were a C++ structure type, full of static
> data and function members.  A Fortran module gets stored in GDB's
> symbol table as a LOC_TYPEDEF symbol.  Is that right?
> 
> I'd like to hear other folks' opinions on this.
> 
> It seems to me like it would work, since a class establishes a scope
> that behaves very much like a module.  Isn't Class::member, where
> member is a static thingy, very much like Module::member (or whatever
> the Fortran syntax is)?  We already have logic for resolving class
> scopes; I don't immediately see why module scopes need to behave any
> differently.
> 
> But I think a module should be represented by something that calls
> itself a module, not a typedef.  How will people feel reading a
> comment explaining that a LOC_TYPEDEF for a type with TYPE_CODE_CLASS
> is how we represent Fortran modules?  I'm not sure that counts as good
> maintenance.
> 
> Perhaps we should introduce LOC_MODULE, or TYPE_CODE_MODULE.
> 
> Or maybe this is okay for now.  When we provide better support for C++
> namespaces, Fortran modules can become a variant of that, which feels
> like a better fit.

That's my opinion.  Fortran modules are obvious candidates for a real
scope; when we have real scopes they can do that, and for now we can
handle them like classes.  I like the principle of the patch (though I
haven't looked at the patch itself).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer