Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

> 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

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

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

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

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

With regard to N:M, note:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-05/msg00060.html

I've also a fuzzy recolection of code like this being added once before, 
only to be later removed - would you recall the problems with that?

--

However, I think we need to first wack down our debuginfo backlog.

Andrew