> So what about these structures makes them difficult to describe in DWARF?
> Let each producer define structures that work for them.
Fortran defines the TEAM_TYPE as "processor dependent", which means
implementation is up to the compiler/run-time implementation. It could be a
pointer to a structure; it could be a key to a database, it could be a small
integer which is mapped to a row in a table. In other words, different
implementations (Intel, gfortran, IBM,..) can do very different things. Even
if they were all structures, they might have different members with different
types.
The problem is that the consumer wants semantics, not implementation. A
consumer has questions like "what is the parent TEAM for the current TEAM?".
To do this with structures, DWARF would have to define TEAM_TYPE, etc.. The
producer would have to generate and maintain the DWARF-style description of
what it was doing in parallel with its actual implementation. This isn't
impossible, but I thought it would be a bigger burden than a callable interface
which would directly query the actual implementation.
___
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
