From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17564 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2006 02:43:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 17550 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2006 02:43:38 -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; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:43:36 +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 k222obsY264736 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:50:37 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.237]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k222kaIQ201076 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:46:44 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k222hIXZ005090 for ; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:43:18 +1100 Received: from [9.181.133.108] ([9.181.133.108]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k222hDam004756; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:43:16 +1100 Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:43:00 -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/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) > > From: Wu Zhou > > cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > 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. :-) > > So you now think that it is not a good idea to display "integer*4" > instead of "int4"? I thought you previously agreed with me that the > former was better, from the user point of view. Eli, I am still with you. The former is surely better for the user. But I am not sure yet which should be fixed, the compiler or the debugger. I proposed another method, which depends on TYPE_CODE (type) and TYPE_LENGTH (type) to determine what to be displayed at last. How do you think on that? (I sent out that proposal a while ago) > GDB is a debugger. If it were a program to display DWARF-2 debug > info, then it should have displayed exactly what is written in there. > But as a debugger, it should display something that is sensible to the > user of a debugger, i.e. it needs to speak the programming language of > the source, not DWARF. Good stand. I agree with you on this too. :-) Regards - Wu Zhou