From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14477 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2004 20:26:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14470 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2004 20:26:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2004 20:26:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Aw5bq-0005q1-5X; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:26:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Peter Jay Salzman Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb with intel fortran compiler Message-ID: <20040225202622.GA22393@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Peter Jay Salzman , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040225200653.GA13223@pete.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040225200653.GA13223@pete.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:06:53PM -0800, Peter Jay Salzman wrote: > I can't "list out of the box: > > p@satan$ gdb a.out > (gdb) list > 1 ../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S: No such file or directory. > in ../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S This is typical. It happens for a lot of non-Fortran programs also. start.S comes from glibc and is linked into every program. > GDB doesn't like this expression in a conditional breakpoint: > > (gdb) break 11 if i == 12 > A parse error in expression, near `= 12'. > > but it does like this one: > > (gdb) break 11 if i = 12 > Breakpoint 2 at 0x8049da9: file test.f90, line 11. Are you sure it didn't modify the variable? :) > Is this a GDB bug? Is there a way to make expressions work the way they > should work when debugging a F90 executable? The only thing you're missing is that GDB does not support F90. No one's given serious time to the Fortran support in a few years now, either. So it's assuming that Fortran -> Fortran77, at a guess. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer