This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: Patch for pascal-dynamic arrays
- From: Joost van der Sluis <joost at cnoc dot nl>
- To: Project Archer <archer at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:08:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: Patch for pascal-dynamic arrays
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090916154453.GA23913@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <email@example.com> <20091004141705.GA18527@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 16:17 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:59:34 +0200, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> > Attached it the new patch.
> Please write GNU style ChangeLog entry for it. I am sorry I did not write the
> entries myself in the log (as a partial excuse it was not reviewed by anyone
> that time).
> > I tested it and I have no regressions anymore.
> Getting a lot of regressions included below.
I had no Fortran installed.
> * Some fortran failures only happen with `ulimit -v 500000'.
> * Are the new Pascal testcase FAILures expected? If a more recent fpc is
> required the testcase should XFAIL, not FAIL.
Yes, they need a new fpc-version (2.3.1 or higher).
> > @@ -197,6 +198,13 @@ struct value
> > /* If value is a variable, is it initialized or not. */
> > int initialized;
> > + CORE_ADDR data_address;
> > +
> > + char calc_length;
> > + long length;
> > + char checked_dynamics;
> > + long lower_bound;
> > + long upper_bound;
> Still I do not like duplicating the information already present in `struct
> main_type'. I find right you have changed passing some `struct type *' to
> `struct value *' instead but that new `struct value' just could use
> copy_type_recursive on that linked `struct type'.
I didn't thought about that. In principle, that information should be
removed from 'struct main_type', since the lower_bound, upper_bound and
length aren't defined for plain structures, without any address set. But
that would be far to intrusive. But I wanted to do it as 'clean' as
possible, that's why the duplication.
I'll look if I can fix it without the duplication as you suggested.
Thanks for looking at it,