From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13330 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 04:32:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 13319 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2006 04:32:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:32:09 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FEJ0N-0004al-Q9; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:32:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Wu Zhou Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support Message-ID: <20060301043203.GA17621@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Wu Zhou , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060228135310.GA25487@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:51:24PM -0500, Wu Zhou wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:53:10 -0500 > > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > Cc: Wu Zhou , 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. :-) I think they're close enough to display for now; I spoke with Paul Brook and there shouldn't be any trouble changing them if we want to. Eli, I agree that it would be reasonable to ignore them; but I don't think there's any particularly easy way to do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery