From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4593 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2004 19:16:51 -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 4576 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2004 19:16:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 19:16:50 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8EJGjZi006789 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:16:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8EJGer12932; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:16:40 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F69328D2; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41474318.2090405@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: breakpoints in C++ constructors References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 > 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