From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20991 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2005 21:39:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20964 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2005 21:39:35 -0000 Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO nimbus.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:39:35 +0000 Received: by NIMBUS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:39:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1578FF984ABAD411AFA5000102C4BB5B11DEF113@NIMBUS> From: Alain Magloire To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: RE: Failed breakpoint for C++ in gdb Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:39:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 > > > > Is the "const char *" vs. "char const *" example consistent in GDB i.e. > can > > I assume this and do some mangling on my own to satisfy the pickiness of > > GDB? > > This is not GDB's pickiness. Agreed, but for the user, with code source like this foobar(const char *p); and then having the debugger insisting on only accepting foobar(char const *p) for breakpoint is ... heu ... bizarre. > It is following whatever the compiler has > specified in debug information. You could still query GDB for the > overloads in some fashion, I expect, but I don't know for sure. > That may not be possible (the query) for the front-end. Let me ask you rephrase the question, is this behavior dependent of the type of debug info? i.e. if I use dwarf-2 vs. stabs++, GDB will not refuse "char const *" I can work around this if the behavior is consistent. Anyway, thanks for the feedback.