Hello Thomas, Displaying infix expressions would be useful but I wonder if it is worth the effort? That said, if you want to give it a go, I would be supportive :-)
Regards Paul On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 at 17:16, Thomas Koenig <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello world, > > having recently had the occasion to look at -fdump-fortran-original > dumps, I found them to be quite hard to read, the same goes for > "call debug(expr)" in the debugger. A line like > > ASSIGN reallocation_bug:y((+ block@1:__var_2_do 1_8)) (+ > reallocation_bug:y((+ block@1:__var_2_do 1_8)) (* reallocation_bug:a((+ > block@1:__var_2_do 1_8) , (+ block@1:__var_1_do 1_8)) > reallocation_bug:x((+ block@1:__var_1_do 1_8)))) > > takes quite some counting of parentheses to decipher. > > I see two possibilities there. One would be to write a script that > takes the output from -fdump-fortran-original and rewrites it > in infix notation (at least the code sections). This would be > possible, but would be unstable because we do not guarantee the > output format, and would not help with the debugger output. > > The other possibility would be to write additional functions > in dump-parse-tree.cc which transfer things into infix > notation, to be output with a separate flag, and to also > (optionally) use that for debugging, at least for code. > The output need not be compilable, but it should be > readable by a human. > > I also would not mind having a + b + c being displayed > as (a + b) + c (and namespace names could also be dropped). > > So, the line above would then read something like > > y(__var_2_do + 1_8) = y(__var_2_do + 1_8) + (a(__var_2_do + 1, > __var_1_do + 1) * b(__var_a_do + 1)) > > which I think is easier. > > What do you think, would this be useful? > > Best regards > > Thomas > > > > >
