From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18007 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2008 01:28:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 17999 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Mar 2008 01:27:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:27:41 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7098298; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:27:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9BB98278; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:27:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JcsWI-0002Uq-AF; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:27:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] new set/show multiple-symbols command (take 4) Message-ID: <20080322012738.GB9255@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080203070825.GK1581@adacore.com> <20080321145119.GC25307@caradoc.them.org> <20080322000921.GF3588@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080322000921.GF3588@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00326.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 05:09:21PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > * gdb.cp/ovldbreak.cc: Add missing bodies for methods foo::foofunc. > > > > Why was this one necessary? It may be hiding a bug. > > IIRC, I was having trouble getting GDB to break on foofunc, and it looked > like it was because the body of these functions were missing. It seemed > pretty normal at the time that I wouldn't be able to break on either of > these methods if there was no body... Should I looked deeper into this? Oh, they weren't used for anything before! I didn't realize. Everything's OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery