From 0e84d6ec2dbc22b4e1753a06705a8a2ca07b837a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Kingdon Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 18:14:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * stabs.texinfo (Negative Type Numbers): FORTRAN LOGICAL fix. --- gdb/doc/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo | 21 ++++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog index 4255245da75..2bb689532c7 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +Mon Jul 26 13:00:09 1993 Jim Kingdon (kingdon@lioth.cygnus.com) + + * stabs.texinfo (Negative Type Numbers): FORTRAN LOGICAL fix. + Tue Jul 20 16:30:41 1993 Jim Kingdon (kingdon@deneb.cygnus.com) * Makefile.in (refcard.dvi): Use srcdir where necessary. diff --git a/gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo b/gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo index 0e008cf408d..979cebb6c2c 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo +++ b/gdb/doc/stabs.texinfo @@ -1354,14 +1354,15 @@ I'm not sure whether anyone has tried to define what this means if their customary size). If @code{int} has exactly one size for each architecture, then it can be handled easily enough, but if the size of @code{int} can vary according the compiler options, then it gets hairy. -I guess the consistent way to do this would be to define separate -negative type numbers for 16-bit @code{int} and 32-bit @code{int}; -therefore I have indicated below the customary size (and other format -information) for each type. The information below is currently correct -because AIX on the RS6000 is the only system which uses these type -numbers. If these type numbers start to get used on other systems, I -suspect the correct thing to do is to define a new number in cases where -a type does not have the size and format indicated below. +The best way to do this would be to define separate negative type +numbers for 16-bit @code{int} and 32-bit @code{int}; therefore I have +indicated below the customary size (and other format information) for +each type. The information below is currently correct because AIX on +the RS6000 is the only system which uses these type numbers. If these +type numbers start to get used on other systems, I suspect the correct +thing to do is to define a new number in cases where a type does not +have the size and format indicated below (or avoid negative type numbers +in these cases). Also note that part of the definition of the negative type number is the name of the type. Types with identical size and format but @@ -1446,7 +1447,9 @@ is zero or non-zero? @code{logical*4}, 32 bit unsigned integral type. @item -24 -@code{logical}, 32 bit unsigned integral type. +@code{logical}, 32 bit type. This @sc{fortran} type has a split +personality in that it is used for boolean variables, but can also be +used for unsigned integers. @item -25 @code{complex}. A complex type consisting of two IEEE single-precision -- 2.30.2