From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-16788-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21622 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 17:24:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21610 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 17:24:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 17:24:15 -0000
Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442)
	id EE2BE5EA11; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:24:13 -0500 (EST)
To: Petr Sorfa <petrs@caldera.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
	"gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DW_AT_calling_convention support
References: <3D2B5385.997D474D@caldera.com>
	<20020709211520.GA21948@nevyn.them.org>
	<3D2B576E.85B28074@caldera.com> <20020709215812.GA966@nevyn.them.org>
	<3D2C3C5F.A74215A4@caldera.com>
	<20020710140354.GA25081@nevyn.them.org>
	<3D2C4567.3AD10A8B@caldera.com>
	<20020710142554.GA26025@nevyn.them.org>
	<np3curzhyu.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3D2C66E9.94EE977@caldera.com>
	<3D2C6B1B.B9DA55FC@caldera.com>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:33:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <3D2C6B1B.B9DA55FC@caldera.com>
Message-ID: <npwus3xzr6.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2


Petr Sorfa <petrs@caldera.com> writes:
> Ok, during testing I realized that I have to detect DW_AT_calling before
> symbol creation while reading in dies and types (I had this in the
> original patch, but removed it thinking it was redundant.) The main
> reason is to call set_main_name() so that the correct program language
> is determined on program load before execution. set_main_symbol() is now
> called within new_symbol().

Okay, I'll look forward to the patch.

Is checking the calling convention really the approved technique for
recognizing a Fortran entry point in Dwarf 2?  Is it really the case
that Fortran programs always only have one function with this calling
convention?  Would your patch do something sensible if it found more
than one?