From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-23142-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 18064 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2005 01:00:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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
Received: (qmail 17592 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2005 01:00:00 -0000
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:00:00 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1Ea0nA-0002nM-Cj; Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:59:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:00:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, woodzltc@cn.ibm.com,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com, fortran@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: The root cause for SEGV in evaluating fortran function call, any solution or suggestion?
Message-ID: <20051110005952.GB10619@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>,
	Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>, woodzltc@cn.ibm.com,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com, fortran@gcc.gnu.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508221743470.10411@linux.site> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511021033530.3549@linux.site> <200511021551.jA2FpO7D009728@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <vt2oe52npn7.fsf@theseus.home.> <20051107000229.GC19200@nevyn.them.org> <vt2slu58gze.fsf@theseus.home.>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <vt2slu58gze.fsf@theseus.home.>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:49:09PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:42:36PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >> The types in the debug information should not reflect the extra level
> >> of indirection; the fact that they're passed by reference is just part
> >> of the meaning of a Fortran function call.  But the location
> >> expression should encode the extra level of indirection.
> >
> > This seems perfectly sensible to me.  But the example Wu posted earlier
> > does not agree: today gfortran apparently puts out the indirections
> > explicitly.
> 
> You're talking about this, where 'm' is declared as 'integer', right?

Yes, that's what I meant.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC