Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:02:34PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:05:01 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > This is the same name that, e.g., gfortran probably uses in some
> > error messages.
> 
> If "int4" is the official gfortran name (is it?), then I agree we
> should leave it alone.

I'm not sure if "official" is really strong enough; I suspect it will
use it in some user messages, as well as in debug information.

> > No, it can't be quite that simple, because current versions of Fortran
> > do support user-named types - "int4" does not necessarily imply
> > integer(4).
> 
> Perhaps I'm confused: isn't "int4" a 32-bit integer?  I thought it
> was, but if I was mistaken, my apologies for the noise.

It's not reserved at all in the input to the compiler - it might be
something different than a type, or it might be the name of a record
type (whatever the correct name for that is).

> > Paul also corrected me on the naming - this would be integer(4)
> > apparently, integer*4 is something different.
> 
> Can you (or someone else) elaborate, or point me to some document that
> does?

I believe integer(4) is an integer with kind == 4.  Paul wrote:

> integer(4) is the standard way, though the "4" has no particular meaning.
> integer*4 is a nonstandard (but common) extension saying "I want an
> integer 4 somthings wide". This may or may not be the same as integer(4).

Make of that whatever you want to...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery