Re: [RFC] FORTRAN95 Expression parser

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Petr Sorfa wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> > > 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?
> It differs considerably - it supports FORTRAN expressions, not C
> expressions that handle FORTRAN stuff. It supports FORTRAN intrinsics
> (KIND, SIZE, LEN, ALLOCATED, ASSOCIATED, etc..). Proper FORTRAN array
> subscripts (including stride). Proper print out of FORTRAN types and
> variables. Supports column major notation. Supports MODULES, CONTAINS,
> TYPE records, and so on.
> 
> User visible ways are considerably different, like I said, it treats
> expressions like FORTRAN would.

Hmmm, tough call.  Sounds like your front end is considerably better, 
but who knows how many users may have grown accustomed/dependent on
the old behavior?

Any way you could merge the two?  Otherwise, it sounds like we
might need to keep both, perhaps with a mode switch.