From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@www.cgsoftware.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Cc: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Cast to a struct in expressions
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:52:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0104290248390.17968-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010429094849.26520F@is>
X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00214.html

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > I have to modify that part of the docs since it says stabs is good for C++
> > (which hasn't been true for about 4 years now) anyway
>
> Well, it only says ``for best results [...] use -gstabs'', so it's not
> an absolute.
Best results will happen with dwarf2, not stabs.

> Stabs are certainly better than, say, COFF debug info
> for debugging C++.  And if GCC is used, stabs are available on more
> platforms than dwarf2.  So I think the manual language isn't totally
> wrong.
Well, it's also only the default on older platforms. I haven't seen a new
port in well over a year that uses STABS as a default.

>
> Btw, if stabs aren't the best type of debug info available in GDB 5.0 for
> debugging C++ code, what is?
>
dwarf2.
By a large margin.

Especially if you call functions.
Overload resolution, for instance, on STABS, is basically a complete hack.
Okay, not basically, it flat out is.
--Dan