From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29561 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2002 19:11:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29407 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2002 19:11:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Feb 2002 19:11:23 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1GJBL711737; Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:11:21 -0600 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:11:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200202161911.g1GJBL711737@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++testsuite] New test for constructor breakpoints Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, > The patch tests _overloaded_ constructors. Ah, you are right. I saw the choice menu and jumped to an incorrect conclusion about what you were doing. I'll revisit the patch. > The bug, however, is with > _cloned_ constructors. Not the same thing at all. Cloned constructors > are not user-visible objects; they only differ in that they use > different offsets into the object based on whether it is a baseclass or > the principal object. But the cloned constructor is visible. For instance, suppose Foo is a virtual base class, and suppose Foo::Foo calls other functions, and suppose that I set a breakpoint on another function. Then the not-in-charge version of Foo::Foo is on the stack and it is going to appear to the user with *some* name. I would like to show this as Foo::Foo$nic, and I would like the user to be able to set breakpoints on either Foo::Foo or Foo::Foo$nic or both, as they see fit. Michael C