From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux@microprocess.com>
To: 'Alexandre Oliva' <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>,
"Rogelio M. Serrano Jr." <rogelio@evoserve.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: RE: two constructor copies in object file
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E43A@IIS000> (raw)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:26 PM
> To: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr.
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: two constructor copies in object file
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2002, "Rogelio M. Serrano Jr."
> <rogelio@evoserve.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are the constructors created twice?
>
> One to handle full-object construction, one to handle sub-object
> construction, IIRC.
Does that mean that nm --demangle has "hidden" a difference in the two
names? It displayed exactly identical symbols (see the OP), but the mangled
ones *may* be different in some way that is *not* displayed by the
demangler.
If that's true, it would be nice if the demangler functions could display a
hint that one is a special constructor.
OTOH if you're true, that mean that we may have surprises when debugging: if
I set a breakpoint on the default constructor for some class, GDB should in
fact set one breakpoint for both constructors or at least *propose* to
choos. However allowing to set the breakpoint on either
"boot_obj::boot_obj()" or "boot_obj::boot_obj()" or "both" will probably
generate quite a lot of traffic on some ML :-)
Bernard
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com
b.dautrevaux@usa.net
--------------------------------------------
next reply other threads:[~2002-01-17 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-17 11:43 Bernard Dautrevaux [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-17 7:17 Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-01-16 18:53 Rogelio M. Serrano Jr.
2002-01-17 8:19 ` Alexandre Oliva
2002-01-17 12:24 ` Joe Buck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E43A@IIS000 \
--to=dautrevaux@microprocess.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br \
--cc=rogelio@evoserve.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).