From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26062 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2008 20:23:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 26051 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2008 20:23:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:23:21 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A323983DB; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:23:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449629829E; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:23:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jo2Xm-0006qq-BO; Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:23:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Markus Deuling , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [patch]: Fix access to SPU registers for fortran Message-ID: <20080421202318.GB26164@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Markus Deuling , GDB Patches References: <20080421193652.GA23498@caradoc.them.org> <200804212000.m3LK0gFL008220@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200804212000.m3LK0gFL008220@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:00:42PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Not without documentation, please. Syntax that doesn't come from > > Fortran (as far as I know) and isn't in the manual might as well not > > be there :-) > > Hmmm, most of the output changes in Markus' patch actually bring the > output in line with correct Fortran syntax in the first place ;-) > > The one addition is the representation of "union" types in the output; > this can never happen in regular Fortran, but can happen if you access > registers that use a gdbarch-defined union type. This extension is > simply the "C_Union" marker; note that as far as the *parser* is > concerned, there is no syntax extension. > > But I guess you're right that this extension should be documented. > I assume the right place would be somewhere in section 12.4.3 Fortran? I see. I didn't realize we already had the % operator that did the necessary operation - I must have not found it when this was last discussed. Maybe we could mention it in the Operators bit of the Fortran documentation, and there add that GDB allows it on unions? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery