Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> writes:

 >> In the following thread, Daniel Jacobowitz and Michael Chastain
 >> talked about the user interface implications of constructing
 >> distinct names for the two instances of the constructor:
 >> 
 >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-07/msg00161.html

 Andrew> It's important that we view these as separate problems:

 Andrew> - a mechanism for explicitly specifying either of the
 Andrew> in-charge or not-in-charge constructor

 Andrew> - a mechanism for specifying the "constructor" (meaning all)

 Andrew> I think users want both, and would be over the moon, if they
 Andrew> just got the first (that's the polite translation).

I'm not sure what that means.  But in any case, I'd like to have #1
for a start, because right now I have nothing.  (Well, unless I do
what I did before, which is to turn on the "verbose" flag in the
demangler as a hack, so the two constructors and the three destructors
have different names.)

     paul