From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19864 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2004 10:35:24 -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 19856 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2004 10:35:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 2004 10:35:22 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:33:55 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Caolan McNamara'" , Subject: RE: OpenOffice.org and gdb Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:41:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-reply-to: <20040720102727.GA15676@skynet.ie> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2004 10:33:55.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F161240:01C46E45] X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner On Behalf Of Caolan McNamara > Sent: 20 July 2004 11:27 > 2. make gdbtestc++ > > The known issues of gdb/1091 & gdb/1193. Not being able to set > breakpoints in constructors :-( > I can work around 4 for my own needs by building the bit of OOo that > contains main with debugging enabled, and I can work around 3 by > restricting myself to line numbers, but 1 and 2 are a real curse. > > Are there any other known workarounds that I can employ, or is there > simply a better compile flag incantation I should use :-) I guess > I should just log bugs against them. For issue 2, see this thread from earlier this week: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-07/msg00161.html Subject: "How to setup a breakpoint on constructor" In the archives, the thread is broken (someone's mailer doesn't handle the references header properly I guess); you'll need to look at the index at http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-07/ for all the posts with the same subject, and in particular you might want to have a go with the patch from http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-07/msg00163.html cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....