From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5775 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2005 21:13:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5319 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2005 21:13:05 -0000 Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO nimbus.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:13:05 +0000 Received: by NIMBUS with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:13:03 -0400 Message-ID: <1578FF984ABAD411AFA5000102C4BB5B11DEF102@NIMBUS> From: Alain Magloire To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Failed breakpoint for C++ in gdb Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:13:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 >From Daniel: >On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:31:10AM -0400, Alain Magloire wrote: >> Why is gdb so fussy about the argument order ? > > GDB generally matches the compiler-generated debug info. There's a > long-term plan to be more forgiving about this, but it's hard to > implement that without slowing down symbol reading... > > > (gdb) b foo(const char *) > > Function "foo(const char *)" not defined > > (gdb) b foo(char const *) > > Breakpoint 1 at 0x....... file testing.cpp line 4. > > > > So is there something I should do ? Do I have to reorder my arguments to > put > > the const last ? > > Is this for command line use? Try: b 'foo Niet, for front-end. Is the "const char *" vs. "char const *" example consistent in GDB i.e. can I assume this and do some mangling on my own to satisfy the pickiness of GDB?