This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: How to setup a breakpoint on constructor
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
- Cc: drow at false dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com, rolandz at poczta dot fm
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:11:07 +0200
- Subject: Re: How to setup a breakpoint on constructor
- References: <20040717205225.56BC04B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
> From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain)
>
> > Coincidentally that's what the entire discussion of 1:N breakpoints
> > last year was about but no one has had time to implement it.
>
> Right.
>
> 1:N breakpoints are better than A::A$base(), but it's been 3 years since
> the ctor-breakpoint issue came up, and we don't have anything at all
> yet.
So how about setting a breakpoint on all of the places, like Daniel
suggested?
> But if someone breaks in A::A$base() and then says 'break 1000' to get
> into the middle of the function (which I do a lot), then they would get
> the breakpoint in the wrong copy! So even if we disambiguate the
> names, the 1:N nature of multiple ctors shines through.
Can't we put a breakpoint on all instances in that case as well?