Re: [RFC] FORTRAN95 Expression parser

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Petr Sorfa wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Thanks for all the input and comments.
> 
> The side-by-side integration was my original intention, so that once
> everybody realizes how great the new F95 parser is then a quick switch
> can be done. Note that I'm thinking of automatically enabling it for
> F90/F95 binaries (as long as they are appropriately marked by the DWARF
> language attribute.) To do this I'll add a new language to gdb -
> fortran95
> 
> Since the parser full functionality depends on many features touching
> DWARF support, column major support, variable evaluation, location
> expression, new scoping, etc.. which will require separate code reviews
> and comments. I'll initially release the parser as a "crimped" version.
> Basically it will do the parsing, but will raise an error if any of the
> unsupported features are used. I'll be adding the other features
> separately and enable the various functionality of the parser as it goes
> on.
> 
> I'm hoping to roll out everything over the next couple of weeks. The
> test suite update will be put in early as well.

Sounds like a good plan.
 
> Even with this roll-out plan I personally think that the initial
> "crimped" version will be more robust than the existing FORTRAN parser.
> 
> Petr
> 
> > Coincidentally, I was looking at a FORTRAN pr this morning.
> >
> > I think the existing FORTRAN expression parser is lame and I would
> > not miss it.
> >
> > I favor the side-by-side strategy.  Keep the files as f95-x files.
> > Let the gdb people play with it side by side.  If the new interface
> > dominates the old interface, we can remove the old f-x files.
> > If we think there will be a constituency for the old interface,
> > then we can release both.
> >
> > The problem with merging is that it makes the code much less readable
> > and makes it harder to discard the old code.
> >
> > My two cents,
> >
> > Michael C