[RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support
Wu Zhou
woodzltc@cn.ibm.com
Wed Mar 1 02:51:00 GMT 2006
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:53:10 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > Normally we try to honor the type names in debug info.
>
> If they make sense, sure. If they don't, I don't think we should
> blindly follow them.
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. :-)
> > If int4 is a bogus name for a type in Fortran, then this debug info
> > is bogus - gfortran should be fixed.
>
> I agree, but at least one version of gfortran that uses int4 is
> already out there, so I suggest that GDB handles that as we think it's
> right.
>
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list