This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Debugging C++ Function Calls
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Lawrence Crowl <crowl at googlers dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:28:40 +0100
- Subject: Re: Debugging C++ Function Calls
- References: <CAGqM8fYQTA-t7SLrPcw2UQOG8Yv1GLmhngnDszZ3yfV5QDQmug at mail dot gmail dot com> <87620fs5nj dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl <crowl@googlers.com> writes:
>
> Lawrence> Hm. I haven't thought about this deeply, but I think SFINAE may
> Lawrence> not be less of an issue because it serves to remove candidates
> Lawrence> from potential instantiation, and gdb won't be instantiating.
> Lawrence> The critical distinction is that I'm not trying to call arbitrary
> Lawrence> expressions (which would have a SFINAE problem) but call expressions
> Lawrence> that already appear in the source.
>
> Thanks.
> I will think about it.
>
> Lawrence> I agree that the best long-term solution is an integrated compiler,
> Lawrence> interpreter, and debugger. That's not likely to happen soon. :-)
>
> Sergio is re-opening our look into reusing GCC.
> Keith Seitz wrote a GCC plugin to try to let us farm out
> expression-parsing to the compiler. This has various issues, some
> because gdb allows various C++ extensions that are useful when
> debugging; and also g++ was too slow.
Did you consider using clang?
<runs...>