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>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:51:07 +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>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>
> cc: 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. :-)
So you now think that it is not a good idea to display "integer*4"
instead of "int4"? I thought you previously agreed with me that the
former was better, from the user point of view.
GDB is a debugger. If it were a program to display DWARF-2 debug
info, then it should have displayed exactly what is written in there.
But as a debugger, it should display something that is sensible to the
user of a debugger, i.e. it needs to speak the programming language of
the source, not DWARF.