Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support

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

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:53:10 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: Wu Zhou <woodzltc@cn.ibm.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > Normally we try to honor the type names in debug info.
> 
> If they make sense, sure.  If they don't, I don't think we should
> blindly follow them.

I did some comparison between g77 and gfortran.  In the aspect of the 
compiler-generated DW_TAG_base_type, g77 uses "byte", "word" and "integer" 
for "integer*1", "integer*2" and "integer*4" respectively.  And gfortran 
seems to adopt a new mechanism, it uses "int1", "int2" and "int4" 
respectively.  So it might also make some sense.  At lease the debugger 
user can guess the meaning from these words.  :-) 

> > If int4 is a bogus name for a type in Fortran, then this debug info
> > is bogus - gfortran should be fixed.
> 
> I agree, but at least one version of gfortran that uses int4 is
> already out there, so I suggest that GDB handles that as we think it's
> right.
>