From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19449-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 12096 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2004 00:18:06 -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 12072 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2004 00:18:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nwkea-mail-1.sun.com) (192.18.42.13)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 00:18:05 -0000
Received: from sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.42])
	by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8I0Hl4d008968;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kealia.sfbay.sun.com (kealia.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.144.80.16])
	by sfbaymail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id i8I0HjcA000415;
	Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by kealia.sfbay.sun.com (Postfix, from userid 2049)
	id A8A24CDFB; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: representing C++ constructors in GDB's symbol tables
References: <vt2pt4ko6p7.fsf@zenia.home>
From: David Carlton <david.carlton@sun.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:18:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <vt2pt4ko6p7.fsf@zenia.home> (Jim Blandy's message of "Fri, 17
 Sep 2004 17:45:40 -0500")
Message-ID: <yf2ekl0a0ra.fsf@kealia.sfbay.sun.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion,
 linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:45:40 -0500, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> said:

> It occured to me that perhaps constructors should not be in the
> VAR_DOMAIN.

This sounds plausible, though I'm not entirely convinced, but for what
it's worth this next claim of yours isn't really true:

> You can't use them by name in expressions: you have to say "new
> X(...)", never "X(...)".

You can use "X(...)" to create a temporary object of type X.  E.g. the
following program works fine.

  #include <iostream>

  class Printer {
    public:
      void print() const {
          std::cout << "print!\n";
      }
  };

  int main() {
      Printer().print();

      return 0;
  }

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.

David Carlton
david.carlton@sun.com