From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15782 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2003 13:44:24 -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 15774 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 13:44:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 13:44:23 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19VX3k-0002dx-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:45:08 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19VX2p-0004tq-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:44:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Koning Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, mec@shout.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] PROBLEMS: document 'constructor breakpoint ignored' bug Message-ID: <20030626134411.GA18802@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Koning , ac131313@redhat.com, mec@shout.net, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200306242026.h5OKQThr012996@duracef.shout.net> <3EFA0DE4.4070009@redhat.com> <20030625230448.GA1600@nevyn.them.org> <16122.60395.709154.279439@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16122.60395.709154.279439@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00789.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:49:47AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Daniel> Sure, since it's not going to be fixed in time. Go for it. > > As a workaround, I patched my local copy of gdb to use the "verbose" > demangler mode, so the various flavors of constructors/destructors DO > have different names. They are *weird* names, but at least you can > refer to their entry points by name that way. > > It's a trivial patch. It changes the way constructors are named in > gdb, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal if it changes them from > conventionally named but unuseable things into strangely named but > useable... > > Interested in that approach, as a stopgap -- rather than document the > restriction? No, I'm not. Using verbose mode will break a number of other things. The verbose output is even less machine-parseable than the non-verbose output. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer