This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors
- From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:14:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors
- References: <vt2fz5k6dic.fsf@zenia.home>
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
It's important that we view these as separate problems:
- a mechanism for explicitly specifying either of the in-charge or
not-in-charge constructor
- a mechanism for specifying the "constructor" (meaning all)
I think users want both, and would be over the moon, if they just got
the first (that's the polite translation).
With regard to N:M, note:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-05/msg00060.html
I've also a fuzzy recolection of code like this being added once before,
only to be later removed - would you recall the problems with that?
--
However, I think we need to first wack down our debuginfo backlog.
Andrew