From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12577 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2007 11:19:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 12559 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2007 11:19:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:19:23 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8191F982DE; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:19:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097C1982DC; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:19:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hy4PP-0007g1-Bt; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:19:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: kdsfinger@gmail.com Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb breakpoint problem Message-ID: <20070612111935.GA29495@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: kdsfinger@gmail.com, Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00090.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:33:15PM -0400, kdsfinger@gmail.com wrote: > The breakpoints set at line 22, 23, 24 are all ignored. However, the > breakpoints set at line 16, 17, 18 are all good to break the program. > What's the difference? They are doing the same thing. Why gdb treated > them differently? Thanks for your comments. That's a known bug in GDB - it has trouble with the way GCC generates constructors for C++ classes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery