This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Improvements to Fortran support
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: David Lecomber <david at streamline-computing dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:25:11 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improvements to Fortran support
- References: <20030115213240.A17967@streamline-computing.com> <20030516122103.A31934@streamline-computing.com>
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 12:21:03PM +0100, David Lecomber wrote:
> Reposting as I now have the copyright assignment in place..
>
> Fortran arrays are presently allocated in their entirety and then the
> correct element is pulled out. This (a) doesn't scale, (b) doesn't
> work if the array is a parameter to a subroutine and supplied with a
> (*) in the dimensions (GDB runs out of memory doing malloc( -1 )..)
>
> The fix here makes the behaviour the same as the code for doing C
> arrays..
Thanks for the patch and your patience. I have a couple of small
comments on your changes.
First of all, when submitting a patch, please include a standard
ChangeLog entry - even for small patches like this one, it makes it
easier to see at a glance what's going on and where. For this patch it
would look something like:
2003-05-16 David Lecomber <david@streamline-computing.com>
* eval.c (evaluate_subexp_standard): Correct handling
for Fortran multidimensional array subscripts.
Secondly, some nits about formatting:
> ! /* Construct a value node with the value of the offset */
> ! /* lower will get subtracted off in value_subscript, hence add it here */
Should be:
/* Construct a value node with the value of the offset. LOWER
will get subtracted off in value_subscript, hence add it
here. */
(i.e. full sentences, two spaces after a full stop.)
And, my only substantive comments:
- Could you explain why this makes a difference? You change value_ind
(value_add (value_coerce_array (), idx))) into value_subscript (array,
idx). value_subscript will call value_coerce_array, then value_add and
value_ind on the result.
- How does f77_get_dynamic_lowerbound end up being called from
value_subscript? I couldn't figure it out, which says that either
I woke up denser than usual this morning or a better comment is in
order.
> *** eval.c Sun Dec 15 22:29:59 2002
> --- eval.c Sun Dec 15 22:28:41 2002
> *************** evaluate_subexp_standard (struct type *e
> *** 1383,1392 ****
> offset_item =
> array_size_array[i] * offset_item + subscript_array[i];
>
> - /* Construct a value node with the value of the offset */
> -
> - arg2 = value_from_longest (builtin_type_f_integer, offset_item);
> -
> /* Let us now play a dirty trick: we will take arg1
> which is a value node pointing to the topmost level
> of the multidimensional array-set and pretend
> --- 1383,1388 ----
> *************** evaluate_subexp_standard (struct type *e
> *** 1395,1401 ****
> returns the correct type value */
>
> VALUE_TYPE (arg1) = tmp_type;
> ! return value_ind (value_add (value_coerce_array (arg1), arg2));
> }
>
> case BINOP_LOGICAL_AND:
> --- 1391,1405 ----
> returns the correct type value */
>
> VALUE_TYPE (arg1) = tmp_type;
> !
> ! f77_get_dynamic_lowerbound (tmp_type, &lower);
> !
> ! /* Construct a value node with the value of the offset */
> ! /* lower will get subtracted off in value_subscript, hence add it here */
> !
> ! arg2 = value_from_longest (builtin_type_f_integer, offset_item + lower);
> !
> ! return value_subscript(arg1, arg2);
> }
>
> case BINOP_LOGICAL_AND:
>
>
> David
>
>
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer