From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28364 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 04:51:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28355 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2006 04:51:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:51:20 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id IAB31752; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 06:51:08 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-245-83.inter.net.il [83.130.245.83]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CUO10375 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 1 Mar 2006 06:51:03 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Wu Zhou CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Wu Zhou on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:51:24 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: [RFC]: Document patch for F90 derived type support Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060228135310.GA25487@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00002.txt.bz2 > 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. 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.