From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27235 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2004 04:13:24 -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 27164 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2004 04:13:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Jul 2004 04:13:11 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-204-215.inter.net.il [80.230.204.215]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DUO22894; Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:11:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:05:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Message-Id: <9003-Sun18Jul2004071107+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: drow@false.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com, rolandz@poczta.fm In-reply-to: <20040717205225.56BC04B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: How to setup a breakpoint on constructor Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040717205225.56BC04B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:52:25 -0400 (EDT) > From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) > > > Coincidentally that's what the entire discussion of 1:N breakpoints > > last year was about but no one has had time to implement it. > > Right. > > 1:N breakpoints are better than A::A$base(), but it's been 3 years since > the ctor-breakpoint issue came up, and we don't have anything at all > yet. So how about setting a breakpoint on all of the places, like Daniel suggested? > But if someone breaks in A::A$base() and then says 'break 1000' to get > into the middle of the function (which I do a lot), then they would get > the breakpoint in the wrong copy! So even if we disambiguate the > names, the 1:N nature of multiple ctors shines through. Can't we put a breakpoint on all instances in that case as well?