From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19450-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 31430 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2004 02:29:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 31407 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2004 02:29:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO maynard.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.243)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 02:29:15 -0000
Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com)
	by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1C8UyP-00015o-00; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:29:13 -0400
Received: from mindspring.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 86F544B102; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:29:32 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:29:00 -0000
From: Michael Chastain <mec.gnu@mindspring.com>
To: jimb@redhat.com, david.carlton@sun.com
Subject: Re: representing C++ constructors in GDB's symbol tables
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Message-ID: <414B9D8B.nailB2O11AVBZ@mindspring.com>
References: <vt2pt4ko6p7.fsf@zenia.home>
 <yf2ekl0a0ra.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <yf2ekl0a0ra.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com>
User-Agent: nail 10.8 6/28/04
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2

David Carlton <david.carlton@sun.com> wrote:
> You can use "X(...)" to create a temporary object of type X.

Sure.  And of course:

  X my_x = X();

Also remember destructors.  A C++ program can explicitly call
a destructor.  Sigh.

> Having said that, a constructor really is a different beast from an
> ordinary function call.  And I don't think that having GDB support
>
>   (gdb) print Printer().print()
>
> should be high on your list of priorities.

Yeah.  I would be comfortable if gdb said "forget about it,
I don't call a ctor directly" (and the same for dtor).

Then in 2006 someone else can come along and fix that limitation,
watching out for the big trap that the ABI for constructors and
destructors can be *different* than for normal functions,
with hidden magic parameters.

Michael