From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6994 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 02:51:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 6986 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2006 02:51:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (HELO ausmtp04.au.ibm.com) (202.81.18.152) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:51:03 +0000 Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp04.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k212vg0R196070 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:57:48 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.243]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k212rkfC185922 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:53:51 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k212oS53027100 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:50:28 +1100 Received: from [9.181.133.108] ([9.181.133.108]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k212oQeD027013; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:50:27 +1100 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:51:00 -0000 From: Wu Zhou To: Eli Zaretskii cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060228135310.GA25487@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:53:10 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: Wu Zhou , 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. >