Re: [RFA] Patch for supportinf DW_TAG_module / FORTRAN modules

[Petr Sorfa <petrs at caldera dot com>]

Hi Elena,

Will do.

Petr
> Jim Blandy writes:
>  > Petr Sorfa <petrs@caldera.com> writes:
>  > > > Your patch is right, as far as I can see.  In that paragraph I'm just
>  > > > saying why I think the patch should work fine.  In the next paragraph
>  > > > I explain my reservations.
>  > > Ok.
>  > >
>  > > > > > But I think a module should be represented by something that calls
>  > > > > > itself a module, not a typedef.  How will people feel reading a
>  > > > > > comment explaining that a LOC_TYPEDEF for a type with TYPE_CODE_CLASS
>  > > > > > is how we represent Fortran modules?  I'm not sure that counts as good
>  > > > > > maintenance.
>  > > > > I originally introduced a TYPE_CODE_MODULE that was basically equivalent
>  > > > > to a TYPE_CODE_CLASS, as much as TYPE_CODE_CLASS is really
>  > > > > TYPE_CODE_STRUCT. I think I must have pulled it out for the patch. I can
>  > > > > put it back in and make it equivalent to TYPE_CODE_CLASS.
>  > > >
>  > > > If we're going to use a struct/class-like thingy to represent a
>  > > > Fortran module, then we should at least add DECLARED_TYPE_MODULE (see
>  > > > DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS, ... in gdbtypes.h).
>  > > Will do. I think I had that done as well.
>  > >
>  > > > > > Or maybe this is okay for now.  When we provide better support for C++
>  > > > > > namespaces, Fortran modules can become a variant of that, which feels
>  > > > > > like a better fit.
>  > > > > Yes. *Cough* maybe this patch can provide support for namespaces?  ;o)
>  > > >
>  > > > I'm not sure I really want the C++ `std' namespace represented as a
>  > > > struct type.
>  > > Please ignore that suggestion, it was made in jest. But you are right,
>  > > once namespace support it put in, it should be able to support FORTRAN
>  > > modules.
>  > >
>  > > If I update the patch to use TYPE_CODE_MODULE and DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS,
>  > > would you reconsider the patch?
>  >
>  > I'd like to hear Elena's comments on it, but if she thinks it's okay,
>  > then I'll review the patch in detail.
> 
> I think the using TYPE_CODE_MODULE and DECLARED_TYPE_CLASS will help
> in distinguishing the Fortran modules.
> 
> I would prefer however is there were lots of new comments added to things
> like this, to make things clearer:
> 
> !       if (cu_language == language_cplus || cu_language == language_fortran)
>         {
>           /* For C++, these implicitly act as typedefs as well. */
>           add_psymbol_to_list (pdi->name, strlen (pdi->name),
> 
> and
> 
> +     case DW_TAG_module:
> +       read_structure_scope (die, objfile, cu_header);
> +       break;
> 
> I don't nderstand the comment here:
> +     case DW_TAG_module:
> +       /* Read the module scope a structure. */
> +       read_structure_scope (die, objfile, cu_header);
> 
> Elena