Re: [RFA] Patch for supportinf DW_TAG_module / FORTRAN modules

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Petr Sorfa <petrs@caldera.com> writes:
> > Your patch is right, as far as I can see.  In that paragraph I'm just
> > saying why I think the patch should work fine.  In the next paragraph
> > I explain my reservations.
> Ok.
> 
> > > > But I think a module should be represented by something that calls
> > > > itself a module, not a typedef.  How will people feel reading a
> > > > comment explaining that a LOC_TYPEDEF for a type with TYPE_CODE_CLASS
> > > > is how we represent Fortran modules?  I'm not sure that counts as good
> > > > maintenance.
> > > I originally introduced a TYPE_CODE_MODULE that was basically equivalent
> > > to a TYPE_CODE_CLASS, as much as TYPE_CODE_CLASS is really
> > > TYPE_CODE_STRUCT. I think I must have pulled it out for the patch. I can
> > > put it back in and make it equivalent to TYPE_CODE_CLASS.
> > 
> > If we're going to use a struct/class-like thingy to represent a
> > Fortran module, then we should at least add DECLARED_TYPE_MODULE (see
> > DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS, ... in gdbtypes.h).
> Will do. I think I had that done as well.
> 
> > > > Or maybe this is okay for now.  When we provide better support for C++
> > > > namespaces, Fortran modules can become a variant of that, which feels
> > > > like a better fit.
> > > Yes. *Cough* maybe this patch can provide support for namespaces?  ;o)
> > 
> > I'm not sure I really want the C++ `std' namespace represented as a
> > struct type.
> Please ignore that suggestion, it was made in jest. But you are right,
> once namespace support it put in, it should be able to support FORTRAN
> modules.
> 
> If I update the patch to use TYPE_CODE_MODULE and DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS,
> would you reconsider the patch?

I'd like to hear Elena's comments on it, but if she thinks it's okay,
then I'll review the patch in detail.