How to setup a breakpoint on constructor
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
mec.gnu@mindspring.com
Sat Jul 17 23:17:00 GMT 2004
> 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$base(), but it's been 3 years since
the ctor-breakpoint issue came up, and we don't have anything at all
yet.
> The reason this is hard is that breakpoints by line number inside the
> constructor will still get randomly set on one copy. Many IDEs will set
> breakpoints in this fashion.
With A::A$base(), the breakpoints will always get set in the complete
object constructor, because that is the only function named A::A().
People will still get only one breakpoint, but it's deterministic, not
random.
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.
I wish we could persuade gcc to generate a unified ctor.
Michael C
More information about the Gdb
mailing list