From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Love To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: fortran regression [was Re: Results for egcs-971207 on m68k-next-nextstep3] Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:18:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199712112353.SAA07152@melange.gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg00755.html >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley writes: Craig> I believe the problem is that g77 is telling the back end that Craig> "REAL A(*)" is really REAL A(1:2147483647) Yes, that's definitely what it does. Craig> One of the problems we've noticed as being likely to occur Craig> once this is resolved is that there's some confusion as to Craig> whether and how the DWARF (2?) debugging format supports this Craig> construct. At least on the x86 linux, only stabs works at all for fortran. gdb gets an internal error if you try it with dwarf. (-gdwarf-2 on this redhat box produces an assembler error; I suppose I need a different binutils.) Anyhow, gdb's fortran support isn't compatible with g77's conventions even when g77 is able to generate appropriate debugging info. Unfortunately you really have to operate in C mode, knowing the relevant conventions, to debug fortran successfully and you still lose in this case. Craig> Hopefully someone knowledgable about that will chime in by the Craig> time it becomes an issue. Hear, hear. (bug-gdb was previously silent on the matter.) >> I think Fortran isn't really usable until this is resolved somehow >> because that construct is very common. Craig> Lots of old code uses this construct (called "assumed Craig> arrays"), plus some new code as well. Given that we don't do f90 :-(, isn't the `old' code is what just uses dimensions of `(1)' with this the new-fangled way? :-/