From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27636 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 20:20:07 -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 27628 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 20:20:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tetsuo.nj.caldera.com) (63.124.204.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 20:20:06 -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 g7GKWMC13396; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:32:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3D5D6156.6B6E38A@caldera.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:20:00 -0000 From: Petr Sorfa Organization: Caldera X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch for supportinf DW_TAG_module / FORTRAN modules References: <3D34883C.4AAC7EE@caldera.com> <3D5D5221.D9854F8F@caldera.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, > Your patch is right, as far as I can see. In that paragraph I'm just > saying why I think the patch should work fine. In the next paragraph > I explain my reservations. Ok. > > > But I think a module should be represented by something that calls > > > itself a module, not a typedef. How will people feel reading a > > > comment explaining that a LOC_TYPEDEF for a type with TYPE_CODE_CLASS > > > is how we represent Fortran modules? I'm not sure that counts as good > > > maintenance. > > I originally introduced a TYPE_CODE_MODULE that was basically equivalent > > to a TYPE_CODE_CLASS, as much as TYPE_CODE_CLASS is really > > TYPE_CODE_STRUCT. I think I must have pulled it out for the patch. I can > > put it back in and make it equivalent to TYPE_CODE_CLASS. > > If we're going to use a struct/class-like thingy to represent a > Fortran module, then we should at least add DECLARED_TYPE_MODULE (see > DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS, ... in gdbtypes.h). Will do. I think I had that done as well. > > > Or maybe this is okay for now. When we provide better support for C++ > > > namespaces, Fortran modules can become a variant of that, which feels > > > like a better fit. > > Yes. *Cough* maybe this patch can provide support for namespaces? ;o) > > I'm not sure I really want the C++ `std' namespace represented as a > struct type. Please ignore that suggestion, it was made in jest. But you are right, once namespace support it put in, it should be able to support FORTRAN modules. If I update the patch to use TYPE_CODE_MODULE and DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS, would you reconsider the patch? Petr