Re: [RFC]: Patch to support Fortran derived type - Revised

[Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>]

By the way, anyone has any idea or comments about the patch?  I am more 
than happy to improve it if you have any idea. 

According to the new maintenance policy, how long should I ping for my 
un-reviewed patch.  If it still gets no reply in a specified time, is 
there anything I can do to get some attention, escalate this to the SC or 
anything else?

P.S: I am asking this because I don't have any knowledge about them ever 
since I join in the GDB community.  I think other new members might also 
feel this way.  Someone ever told me to wait for one or two weeks.  But 
I am not sure.  

Regards
- Wu Zhou

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Wu Zhou wrote:

> Thanks for your comments.  
> 
> Yes. I am thinking of adding these to gdb manual.  But I am not sure how 
> to organize them. As you know, we already have three subsection: Fortran 
> operators, Fortran defaults and special Fortran command.  Which section 
> should this kind of text gets into?  Maybe special Fortran commands? 
> But They are in fact common GDB command, only with somewhat different 
> output format. Maybe it make sense to add another new section?  What do 
> you think?
> 
> However I did added a few words in the Fortran operators section.  Here is 
> the patch:
> 
> Index: gdb.texinfo
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo,v
> retrieving revision 1.296
> diff -u -p -r1.296 gdb.texinfo
> --- gdb.texinfo	20 Nov 2005 06:12:59 -0000	1.296
> +++ gdb.texinfo	22 Nov 2005 07:05:01 -0000
> @@ -9159,6 +9159,10 @@ of the second one.
>  @item :
>  The range operator.  Normally used in the form of array(low:high) to
>  represent a section of array.
> +
> +@item %
> +Fortran 90 and afterwards use this to access the members of derived
> +type, which is also introduced after the Fortran 90.
>  @end table
>  
>  @node Fortran Defaults
> 
> 
> Regards
> - Wu Zhou
>