PATCH: Start Fortran support for variable objects.
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow@false.org
Mon Jul 4 03:49:00 GMT 2005
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 01:41:13PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > > First of all, never reference ->main_type - see above for the right way
> > > > to get the low bound. An even better way (it seems) is to call
> > > > get_discrete_bounds. Take a look at value_subscript for an example.
> > >
> > > Better than TYPE_LOW_BOUND?
> >
> > I suppose. I don't know which one is preferred; some day, someone
> > should go through and clean them all up to be consistent. I'm fine
> > with either choice.
>
> To keep things simple I've used TYPE_LOW_BOUND. I've tested with the examples
> I've posted before and it works. Presumably there should also be a test case,
> so I'll create one for mi-var-child.exp and mi2-var-child.exp (you still
> haven't approved my patch for mi2-cmd-stack.exp (28 Jun 2005 01:53:52 +1200).
You posted nothing to gdb-patches on June 27th, 28th, or 29th (except
for the first version of this patch). I vaguely remember seeing a
patch on gdb@ when Mark complained about your introducing regressions.
But if you'd like it approved, please post it to the patches list; I am
methodical about processing gdb-patches mail because it has a clearly
defined request-reply format, and gdb@ discussions tend to wander off
on tangents (like that one did).
BTW, found the patch in the archives - the changelog entry is for the
wrong file. Also, can we just remove the failing test, instead of
adding new tests to mi2? We really need to get a coherent story
together on what "is" mi2, but I don't think we need to add tests for
new commands to it.
> 2005-06-30 Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
>
> * varobj.c (varobj_list_children): Allow non-zero offsets for
> languages like Fortran.
Retcode is unused.
Can't we get here with struct types? In which case this will blow up:
> + j = i + TYPE_LOW_BOUND (TYPE_INDEX_TYPE (var->type));
> +
> /* check if child exists, if not create */
> - name = name_of_child (var, i);
> + name = name_of_child (var, j);
> child = child_exists (var, name);
> if (child == NULL)
> - child = create_child (var, i, name);
> + child = create_child (var, j, name);
>
> *((*childlist) + i) = child;
> }
Also, I'm beginning to wonder if you're doing this in the right place.
Not that it matters a whole lot, but index is 0-based in every other
case, including for structs. Maybe the children of arr(4) should be
arr.0 == arr(1), arr.1 == arr(2), arr.2 == arr(3), arr.3 == arr(4).
Then you'd add the lower bound in c_value_of_child. Does that work?
Do you have an opinion on which is "more right"?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list