From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28912 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2007 13:14:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 28903 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2007 13:14:11 -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; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:14:05 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580B098340 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:14:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC6B9833F for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IlP0f-0004XA-Av for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:13:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Another Fortran problem... Message-ID: <20071026131357.GA17240@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <19c433eb0710260339w341f3437u4797445de7bc36d@mail.gmail.com> <19c433eb0710260604g53552b55ree7c72b13cb27f62@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19c433eb0710260604g53552b55ree7c72b13cb27f62@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00266.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 02:04:56PM +0100, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote: > What I would consider the best behaviour for gdb is that it considers > both source names and linkage names, and in case of an ambiguity > 1. between a source name and a linkage name, go for the linkage name > 2. between two source names, ask the user to specify the linkage > name of one of them > > Of course, I don't know how hard it would be to implement this behaviour. Somewhat impractical. I think we would be best off ignoring linkage names for Fortran, or else GCC not emitting them... I don't know which. Won't they generally match the names in the ELF symbol table? In that case they are not particularly useful for definitions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery