This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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?

Daniel Jacobowitz

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]