Re: Failed breakpoint for C++ in gdb

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-07-28T21:16:43Z

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:12:56PM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> From Daniel:
> >On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:31:10AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote:
> >> Why is gdb so fussy about the argument order ?
> >
> > GDB generally matches the compiler-generated debug info. There's a
> > long-term plan to be more forgiving about this, but it's hard to
> > implement that without slowing down symbol reading...
> >
> > > (gdb) b foo(const char *)
> > > Function "foo(const char *)" not defined
> > > (gdb) b foo(char const *)
> > > Breakpoint 1 at 0x....... file testing.cpp line 4.
> > >
> > > So is there something I should do ? Do I have to reorder my arguments to
> > put
> > > the const last ?
> >
> > Is this for command line use? Try: b 'foo<TAB>
>
> Niet, for front-end.
>
> 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. 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.