From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30261-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27871 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2007 08:47:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 27863 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2007 08:47:06 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:47:03 +0000
Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (245.31.255.123.static.snap.net.nz [123.255.31.245]) 	by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294493D9F68; 	Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:47:00 +1300 (NZDT)
Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) 	id CBE168FC6D; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:46:54 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <18239.64509.973311.432145@kahikatea.snap.net.nz>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:47:00 -0000
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>, 	gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Multiple breakpoint locations
In-Reply-To: <20071118022633.GA16097@caradoc.them.org>
References: <18233.63439.953202.586908@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<u8x4xcbyj.fsf@gnu.org> 	<fhmstu$i80$1@ger.gmane.org> 	<u1waodgv7.fsf@gnu.org> 	<18239.38458.695867.472660@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> 	<20071118022633.GA16097@caradoc.them.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 23.0.50.49
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2

 > > So I think, at some point, a separate node, or one grouped with breakpoint
 > > menus to highlight the differences, would be a good idea.  Other things,
 > > like needing to include the return type in the template name when
 > > specifying a breakpoint location could also be included.
 > 
 > If I can find the time, I hope to get this fixed before the end of the
 > year.

But Andreas has said that:

"For function templates the return type is part of the signature"

and

"It is valid for function template instantiations to only differ in the
return type."

which suggests to me that the return type is a necessary part of the name.


-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob