From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5750 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2007 19:01:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 5739 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2007 19:01:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:01:53 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E164D9833F for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:01:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94AB9830E for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:01:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Il7xm-0000QE-Eg for gdb@sourceware.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:01:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Problems while debugging fortran Message-ID: <20071025190150.GA1560@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <19c433eb0710250906k392cecf8t1f99595d5c5a8107@mail.gmail.com> <20071025170621.GA27275@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:43:57AM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > To be clear: I think the actual code in Carlos's patch is just fine. > The comment, though, should not say things that are simply untrue. > Which is why I suggested a new comment, instead of rejecting the > patch. Whether or not we like the state of DWARF in this regard, the > comment should correct describes the state of play, no? However, the Fortran main program receives its arguments via a special calling convention I don't think that's true. As far as I know it has a perfectly ordinary calling convention. As for Carlos's comment, I don't know if it's true or not, but it certainly seems to be what everyone else interprets the DWARF standard to suggest :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery