View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mecej4
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 1886
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:10 am Post subject: Inconsistent debug information, 32-bit versus 64-bit |
|
|
The test program below has a peculiar property: it invokes an inquiry function whose return value depends on the type rather than the value of its argument. What should we see in the debugger when such an argument is undefined and we compile with /debug?
Code: | program trigrs
implicit none
integer:: m
real :: ti,param(3)
ti=tiny(param(m)) ! m as well as param are undefined
print *,ti ! but tiny() depends on type of arg, not value
end program trigrs |
When this program is compiled using v8.66 with /debug or /undef for 32-bit and opened in the v8.64 debugger, we see entries for m and param in the variables panel. In the 64-bit version, these variables are not even present in the variables panel!
Pro and con arguments could be listed for showing entries for unused/unneeded variables in the variables panel. My preference would be to see more details when debugging, since seeing 'Undefined' for variables such as m and param may help to detect bugs more easily.
Last edited by mecej4 on Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:46 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DietmarSiepmann
Joined: 03 Jun 2013 Posts: 279
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with mecej4 and this especially for another reason: to my opinion the information given by the 64 bit version of the debugger should be the same as that of the 32 bit version whenever possible.
This would make debugging easier when porting 32 bit code to 64 bit.
In this context I would like to ask if the streams command which is supported by Salford's 32 bit debugger (sdbg) will be supported by the 64 debugger (sdbg64), too.
For sdbg64 version 8.62a the streams command is not yet supported. I like this feature very much
Regards,
Dietmar |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DanRRight
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 Posts: 2816 Location: South Pole, Antarctica
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought this was fixed, but looks like it was not |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|