Re: [RFC] FORTRAN95 Expression parser

[Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.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.

Hmmm, then users used to the old syntax, plus any scripts that
use the old syntax, will all have to change.  I'd say they
should live side-by-side for a while, at least for one release.
Choice of syntax should be a user preference, so people needing
compat can set in .gdbinit and not have to deal with immediately.
Should be OK to default to the new parser though.

There's no real downside to having both present, right?

Stan