Re: [RFC]: Patch to support Fortran derived type - Revised

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 03:24:29PM +0800, Wu Zhou wrote:
> > > +name	:	NAME
> > > +		{  $$ = $1.stoken; }
> > > +	;
> > > +
> > 
> > Why not just use name_not_typename instead of adding "name"?
> > 
> > Also, the comments in name_not_typename don't apply here; you could
> > also handle exp : exp % NAME_OR_INT as a name.  But, I don't think that
> > adds much value.  The whole NAME_OR_INT thing seems like overkill.
> 
> AFAICT, adding "name" might be a more direct and easier way to handle 
> that. I am not sure yet how to handle name_not_typename or NAME_OR_INT, 
> but it seems that some more work is needed in either the parsing or 
> evaluation phase.  What is more, using "name" is the same way as that in
> c and c++ expression parser, which looks to be more consistent. 
> 
> Does these make sense?

I suppose.

> 2005-12-10  Wu Zhou  <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>
> 
> 	* gdb.fortran/derived-type.f90: New file.
> 	* .fortran/derived-type.exp: New testcase.

Typo there.

> +++ gdb.fortran/derived-type.f90	16 Nov 2005 06:50:22 -0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +program main

Please add a copyright notice to all new tests.

Otherwise the code and testcase look fine; Eli had some additional
comments on the texinfo bits.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery