From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2775 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2011 17:06:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2762 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2011 17:06:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:06:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0BH6eKT024249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:06:40 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0BH6buE029759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:06:39 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0BH6bvn029862; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:06:37 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p0BH6Zpu029861; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:06:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:26:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andrew Burgess Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Multi-dimensional arrays issue (PR fortran/11104) Message-ID: <20110111170634.GA29563@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110106120302.GA32416@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-01/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:50:35 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > I read this and at least the parts that I understood make sense to me :) > I think you should go ahead with it. I was thinking that even with the patch 1/2 there is a memory requirements regression: If you have a value containing the array (such as $var) it is not lazy. The new code will create the memory copies of the intermediate array subsections. The current FSF GDB code did not. But in practice I do not think it is a problem as there is already a problem if one attempts to copy a huge array into an internal variable. And in most cases the value is lazy which is OK. Thanks, Jan