From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4482 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2002 18:57:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3266 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 18:56:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tetsuo.nj.caldera.com) (63.124.204.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 18:56:18 -0000 Received: from caldera.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by tetsuo.nj.caldera.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3TJ70903156; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:07:00 -0400 Message-ID: <3CCD99D3.66CD0B7E@caldera.com> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:57:00 -0000 From: Petr Sorfa Organization: Caldera X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: [RFC] FORTRAN95 Expression parser Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01134.txt.bz2 Hi, I've created a FORTRAN95 expression parser for GDB. It is based off the current FORTRAN expression parser, but has changed significantly in source and functionality. I've developed it as a new separate parser with the file prefix of f95-x as opposed to the existing f-x files. The question is whether I should submit the patch as the f95-x files (which will leave the current FORTRAN parser untouched) or replace the existing FORTRAN parser? Note that the F95 parser fully supports F77/F90/F95, but differs a bit from the existing fortran gdb parser (which relies a bit heavily on C notation.) Petr