This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: RFC: DWARF debug tags for gfortran's OOP implementation
- From: Michael Eager <eager at eagerm dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:19:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: DWARF debug tags for gfortran's OOP implementation
- References: <4E08C03C.1040706@net-b.de> <4E09E34C.8050405@eagerm.com> <4E0A0809.6040104@net-b.de> <m31uyd951i.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On 06/28/2011 11:36 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Tobias" == Tobias Burnus<burnus@net-b.de> writes:
Tobias> The DWARF spec does not really tell the implications of the
Tobias> accessibility tags, which makes it a tad more difficult to
Tobias> understand what should be done.
That is ok -- the DWARF consumer will see that the CU is Fortran, and
will know to apply Fortran semantics.
Yes. DWARF attributes have to be interpreted in the context of
the language they are describing.
DWARF describes the source language constructs and how they are translated
into object files, while generally avoiding defining precise semantics for
each attribute. Since each language has slightly different semantics for
shared concepts like accessibility, if DWARF did define precise semantics,
it would have to define a different attribute for each language or minor
variation. Worse, we might end up in the awkward position of a language
standard being revised so that the DWARF definition no longer matched.
--
Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077