>> 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
