From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32472 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2002 21:33:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32444 invoked by uid 61); 17 Oct 2002 21:33:23 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021017213323.32443.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: dberlin@sources.redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, tom.horsley@ccur.com From: dberlin@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: dberlin@sources.redhat.com, dberlin@sources.redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, tom.horsley@ccur.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: debug/8094: bad dwarf for inlined constructors X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: bad dwarf for inlined constructors Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->dberlin Responsible-Changed-By: dberlin Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Oct 17 14:33:23 2002 Responsible-Changed-Why: me State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: dberlin State-Changed-When: Thu Oct 17 14:33:23 2002 State-Changed-Why: Need a test case, for both problems, in order to debug. Also, when you say "two separate copies of a constructor", do they have the same mangled name? I suspect one is the in-charge constructor, and one is the not-in charge constructor, and they actually have different names. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8094