From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2134 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2007 13:37:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 2121 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2007 13:37:08 -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; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:37:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF779824E; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:37:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E12E98103; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:36:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1Isett-00055B-Sk; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:36:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jim Blandy , schwab@suse.de, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoint locations Message-ID: <20071115133657.GA19518@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Jim Blandy , schwab@suse.de, ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <18233.63439.953202.586908@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:08:08AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com > > From: Jim Blandy > > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:26:26 -0800 > > > > Following that link, I think I now better appreciate why full C++ > > support in GDB is basically impossible: in order to decide which 'fun' > > template the call in 'main' refers to, one must try to instantiate > > each template and type-check the resulting code. So GDB would need to > > essentially incorporate a full C++ front end. > > The information emitted by the compiler (which already has a full C++ > implementation) could help, couldn't it? It helps, but not much more than we use it already. The debug info isn't designed to include some of the extra details needed to figure out where things are visible and what all the options are. In my opinion, we do this well enough. Every once in a while I poke at doing overloading and template selection better in GDB, but what we have is adequate for most uses and the marginal work required to improve it is substantial. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery