From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30211-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6435 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2007 06:20:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 6425 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2007 06:20:08 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:20:06 +0000
Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) 	id 1IsBbW-0002T7-7i 	for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:20:02 +0000
Received: from 77.246.241.246 ([77.246.241.246])         by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))         id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00         for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:20:02 +0000
Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))         id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00         for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:20:02 +0000
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
From:  Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
Subject:  Re: Multiple breakpoint locations
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:20:00 -0000
Message-ID:  <fhe3rc$cs0$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <18233.63439.953202.586908@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <je7ikln6r7.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7Bit
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2

Andreas Schwab wrote:

> Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> writes:
> 
>> Yes, thanks.  It seems strange to me that the return type needs to be
>> specified.  I thought with overloading, people talked about signature
>> which is determined by the name and arguments but not the return type.
> 
> For function templates the return type is part of the signature (it can
> be parameterised with a template argument).

I'm not sure it's true. Consider:

        template<class T>
        T foo();

        template<class T>
        void bar();

The value of template parameter is indeed the part of signature.
The return value does not seem to be, since it directly depends
on template parameter, so:

        foo<int>()

quite uniquely specify the type of return value.

- Volodya