Hi all, here is another attempt to make gfortran support user-requested backtraces.
A patch in this direction was already proposed by FX in March, but did not make it in so far. It was last discussed in June, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-06/msg00131.html and follow-ups, where the consensus seemed to be to add a new intrinsic subroutine for this (as GNU extension). This is just what the attached patch does: It exports _gfortran_show_backtrace from libgfortran and adds an intrinsic SHOW_BACKTRACE, together with some documentation in intrinsic.texi (it also documents the fact that ABORT gives a backtrace recently). Ok for trunk? Cheers, Janus 2012-12-14 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> PR fortran/36044 * gfortran.h (gfc_isym_id): Add GFC_ISYM_SHOW_BACKTRACE. * intrinsic.c (add_subroutines): Add "show_backtrace". * intrinsic.texi (SHOW_BACKTRACE): Document SHOW_BACKTRACE intrinsic. 2012-12-14 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> PR fortran/36044 * gfortran.map: Add _gfortran_show_backtrace. * libgfortran.h: Export show_backtrace. * runtime/backtrace.c: Ditto. 2012/6/21 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: >>> There are two possibilities: >>> a) Making _gfortran_show_backtrace accessible from the outside (via manual >>> C binding from Fortran) >>> b) Adding a new intrinsic >>> >> >> I would vote for b), as it gets documented then. >> It is enough useful for a wide range of programmers to deserve >> an intrinsic of its own, IMHO. >> And always directly available, no need of module convolutions. > > As noted before, I also prefer b). > > >> Name: simply show_backtrace ? >> This would be a self-explaining name, the odd "QQ" in >> tracebackqq is just this, odd. >> And why call it traceback when it is actually a backtrace ;-) > > Adopting the name from Intel would have the advantage of compatibility > between ifort and gfortran. However, since other vendors have > different names, compatibility between several compilers in this > non-standard function will not be realized. Moreover I agree that the > 'QQ' part is odd (I never understood what it is supposed to mean). > > Therefore I would also vote for something like "show_backtrace" (or > simply "backtrace"?). > > Cheers, > Janus
pr36044_backtrace_intrinsic.diff
Description: Binary data
