From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Shebs To: andy@maxwell.la.asu.edu Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Fortran array patches Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0000 Message-id: References: X-SW-Source: 1999-q1/msg00035.html andy@maxwell.la.asu.edu (Andy Vaught) writes: > Of course, only after the patch has actually been *sent* does an alternate > explanation occur-- g77 may be at fault! Running gdb on AIX works fine, > so it looks like g77 is the one that is backwards.... Yes, this particular convention was set up for the benefit of other Fortran compilers. Craig Burley keeps saying that g77's debug info generation needs a bunch of work, and not to worry about what GDB makes of it yet. So if this is important to you, you might want to consider delving into g77 a bit. Stan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stan Shebs To: andy@maxwell.la.asu.edu Cc: gdb-patches@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Fortran array patches Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 13:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: X-SW-Source: 1999-01/msg00035.html Message-ID: <19990131134800.6QdUVtZk1LKcQch6jlnO41vEjI9AUDIrJnqXxnIgG5o@z> andy@maxwell.la.asu.edu (Andy Vaught) writes: > Of course, only after the patch has actually been *sent* does an alternate > explanation occur-- g77 may be at fault! Running gdb on AIX works fine, > so it looks like g77 is the one that is backwards.... Yes, this particular convention was set up for the benefit of other Fortran compilers. Craig Burley keeps saying that g77's debug info generation needs a bunch of work, and not to worry about what GDB makes of it yet. So if this is important to you, you might want to consider delving into g77 a bit. Stan