From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30018-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27412 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2007 18:44:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 27386 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2007 18:44:09 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:43:59 +0000
Received: (qmail 15925 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2007 18:43:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Oct 2007 18:43:57 -0000
To: Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org,  Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, 	  Carlos Eduardo Seo <cseo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Problems while debugging fortran
References: <19c433eb0710250906k392cecf8t1f99595d5c5a8107@mail.gmail.com> 	<20071025170621.GA27275@caradoc.them.org>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:44:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <20071025170621.GA27275@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:06:21 -0400")
Message-ID: <m3lk9rxceq.fsf@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false.org> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:06:54PM +0100, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote:
>> For the longer term, what do you think is the optimal solution? I'd
>> like to make gfortran, the Fortran front-end in GCC, do The Right
>> Thing, but what is it? Should we add this DW_AT_calling_convention tag
>> for the time being, until the meaning of the DWARF standard is made
>> clearer?
>
> I'll let Jim answer this, though I think it's reasonable.

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?