Btw: Forgot to mention that it regtests cleanly and the docu parts were tested with make pdf.
Cheers, Janus 2012/12/14 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: > 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
