From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12826-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11978 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2002 00:50:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11902 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 00:50:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 00:50:07 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1G0o5Q04148;
	Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:50:05 -0600
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:50:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200202160050.g1G0o5Q04148@duracef.shout.net>
To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/c++testsuite] New test for constructor breakpoints
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2

This patch is declined for now, because I believe there is still controversy
about the right thing to do for overloaded constructors and destructors.

(And I am a party to that controversy ... so someone admonish please me if
I start getting thickheaded).

Michael C

===

2002-02-14  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>

	* gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: Test breakpoints on the constructors.