This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problems with breakpoints in constructors
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 09:48:32PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote:
> How will GDB search functions correctly without a mangled named? I don't think
> we should stop gdb from using DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name.
By using the explicit scope information, as DWARF-2 is intended to
work. The use of mangled names for this is a terrible hack.
> > In any case, that's not the problem. GDB manages to work OK with the
> > debugging information it has now, with a little awkwardness. You can't
> > say "break A::A", but "break 'A::A(int)'" works. The only real problem
> > is the inability to handle cloned constructors, which is more of a user
> > interface problem than a technical problem.
> This problem occurs only with default constructors (break A::A) There are two
> of them. GDB can find only one of them. GDB problem is two-fold: it detects
> the presence of two constructors but a A::A search results in only one of
> them both the times, so it places both breakpoints at the same place.
> I believe that gdb problem may automatically get solved if gcc generates
> multiple linkage names.
I don't think it's very likely, but I've been surprised before. Have
you hand-created fixed dwarf output to check GDB's behavior?