From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7968 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2002 01:49:22 -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 7766 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2002 01:49:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2002 01:49:19 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA03265; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CCDF533.4D5C2851@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:49:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Petr Sorfa CC: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RFC] FORTRAN95 Expression parser References: <3CCD99D3.66CD0B7E@caldera.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01146.txt.bz2 Petr Sorfa wrote: > > 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.) How much does it differ? Functionally? In user-visible ways? How about test suites?