Re: [patch] Unified debug dump function names.

[Lawrence Crowl <crowl at googlers dot com>]

On 3/25/13, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Lawrence" == Lawrence Crowl <crowl@googlers.com> writes:
> Lawrence> This patch is somewhat different from the original plan at
> Lawrence> gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/debugging-dumps.  The reason
> Lawrence> is that gdb has an incomplete implementation of C++ call syntax;
> Lawrence> requiring explicit specification of template arguments and
> Lawrence> explicit specification of function arguments even when they have
> Lawrence> default values.
>
> Note that the latter is because GCC doesn't emit this information.

I'm not laying blame anywhere, just informing folks of an adjustment
to the plan due to the current situation.

> As for the former ... we have a patch that works in some cases,
> but it's actually unclear to me how well the debugger can do
> in general here.  We haven't put it in since it seems better to
> require users to be explicit than to silently do the wrong thing
> in some cases.

My model is that I should be able to cut and paste an expression
from the source to the debugger and have it work.  I concede that
C++ function overload resolution is a hard problem.  However, gdb
has a slightly easier task in that it won't be doing instantiation
(as that expression has already instantiated everything it needs)
and so it need only pick among what exists.

-- 
Lawrence Crowl