Re: fortran regression [was Re: Results for egcs-971207 on m68k-next-nextstep3]

[Dave Love <d dot love at dl dot ac dot uk>]

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org> 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?  :-/