From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26875 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2004 14:51:06 -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 26852 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2004 14:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2004 14:51:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1Alr1n-0001y9-Mw; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:50:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: michaelstather@nuzi.de, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Does current GDB work correctly woth gcc 3.3 (3.4)? Message-ID: <20040128145051.GA7372@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ramana Radhakrishnan , michaelstather@nuzi.de, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040128092756.EF962693A53@sinope.kasserver.com> <48828.203.199.140.162.1075297416.squirrel@webmail.codito.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <48828.203.199.140.162.1075297416.squirrel@webmail.codito.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 07:13:36PM +0530, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi, > > > I already asked this several times before, but I got no answer: > > Does the upcoming gcc work correctly with gcc 3.x gereated executables > > or does the "ignore breakpoints in constructor" bug still exist. > > > > A more polite question would work . I tried out your stuff with g++ > version 3.2 as well as cvs head for today using gdb cvs head also. > Attached are the session logs. It works for me over here.It would be > better if you could do something like this. > > > > > > If yes, when it´s estimated to be fixed? > > me thinks it is already fixed. Maybe I am using a wrong test case but one > would not know. . A proper test case would definitely help. So maybe you > can send a better test case and hope for a reply. > > > > > > I think all linux developers need this to work with gdb reliabely! > All C++ developers need this to work with gdb reliably would be a better > way of putting things. It is half-fixed. Some constructors can be breakpointed, some (for base classes) can not. A proper fix is still being worked on. A whole lot of GNU/Linux and C++ developers don't seem to be crippled by this. It's really not that hard to work around. Set a breakpoint by PC if necessary. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer