From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29625 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2013 20:00:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 29568 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2013 20:00:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1MJxuE1008671 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:59:56 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1MJxtlW009754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:59:56 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] fix disassemble foo::bar::~bar References: <87sj4p9xp9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5126B48A.1080903@redhat.com> <87k3q088iv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5127CA5E.5090201@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <5127CA5E.5090201@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:43:26 -0800") Message-ID: <87zjyw6rwk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz writes: Keith> (gdb) p foo::~bar Keith> name of destructor must equal name of class Keith> How much more useful is that than Keith> (gdb) p foo::~bar Keith> There is no field named ~bar I think the difference is that with the current code, it is a parse-time error, but if we remove destructor_name_p, then it is an evaluation-time error. This difference matters for breakpoint conditions. Searching the type's function fields seems like the very best, to me. I couldn't think of a drawback of this anyhow. Tom