From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11733 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2001 03:53:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11503 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2001 03:52:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2001 03:52:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16BpaY-0003A0-00; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 22:52:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Daniel Berlin Subject: DWARF-2 and constructors/destructors Message-ID: <20011205225246.A10961@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Daniel Berlin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2 Suppose you want to call a (non-virtual) method in C++, from something with Dwarf-2 info. The only way to get the mangled name from the debug info is DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name. This isn't, of course, present for constructors/destructors, since the entry in the class definition is for the abstract version. Is it reasonable for the debugger to have to mangle this itself? The constructor arguments can be arbitrarily complex. Should there be references in the debug information to the base and complete constructors anywhere? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer