This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors
- From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- To: cagney at gnu dot org
- Cc: jimb at redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:06:04 -0400
- Subject: Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors
- References: <vt2fz5k6dic.fsf@zenia.home><41474318.2090405@gnu.org>
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:
>> In the following thread, Daniel Jacobowitz and Michael Chastain
>> talked about the user interface implications of constructing
>> distinct names for the two instances of the constructor:
>>
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-07/msg00161.html
Andrew> It's important that we view these as separate problems:
Andrew> - a mechanism for explicitly specifying either of the
Andrew> in-charge or not-in-charge constructor
Andrew> - a mechanism for specifying the "constructor" (meaning all)
Andrew> I think users want both, and would be over the moon, if they
Andrew> just got the first (that's the polite translation).
I'm not sure what that means. But in any case, I'd like to have #1
for a start, because right now I have nothing. (Well, unless I do
what I did before, which is to turn on the "verbose" flag in the
demangler as a hack, so the two constructors and the three destructors
have different names.)
paul