RE: [PATCH] Multi-dimensional Fortran arrays issue PR11104

["Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>]

Hi,

If anyone has the time please could this patch be reviewed. I realise that there's an overlap with some of the code currently in the Archer VLA branch, but as this keeps some of the bounds checking in place I hoped this might be acceptable.
The revised patch includes the ChangeLog entry as text ahead of the patch content, I've since been told that's not the preferred format and will split it out if that would make people life easier.
I'm happy to make any changes requested.

At the time I submitted the patch I built & tested on x86-64 with no regressions.

Thanks,

Andrew




> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Burgess
> Sent: 19 October 2010 17:23
> To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Cc: Jan Kratochvil
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Multi-dimensional Fortran arrays issue PR11104
> 
> Jan, thanks for taking the time to look through the original patch.
> 
> > On 18 October 2010 22:20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> >
> > multi-dim.tar.bz2 (.exp + .f90) should be submitted as a normal
> patch,
> 
> Done.
> 
> >
> > ChangeLog should be submitted as a text, not as patch.
> >
> 
> I've included the ChangeLog entries within the patch file as plain text
> before the start of that patch content, this seems to be what others
> have done, but I can pull them out if this is not correct.
> 
> > There are several minor issues with formatting:
> > 	http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/
> 
> I believe that these have all been addressed. If I've still missed
> anything then please let me know.
> 
> >
> > This functionality is implemented by archer-jankratochvil-vla from:
> > 	http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ArcherBranchManagement
> >
> > (out of bounds access is not detected by the VLA patchset though)
> >
> > which is currently not submitted for a review as it has more
> > prerequisites.
> 
> As I had the patch pretty much ready I cleaned it up anyway. I guess
> it's up to someone else to decide to merge this or wait for the Archer
> branch to land.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew
> 
>