This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/c++testsuite] New test for constructor breakpoints
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:28:53 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA/c++testsuite] New test for constructor breakpoints
- References: <200202160050.g1G0o5Q04148@duracef.shout.net>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 06:50:05PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> This patch is declined for now, because I believe there is still controversy
> about the right thing to do for overloaded constructors and destructors.
> (And I am a party to that controversy ... so someone admonish please me if
> I start getting thickheaded).
Let me clarify terminology, please.
The patch tests _overloaded_ constructors. The bug, however, is with
_cloned_ constructors. Not the same thing at all. Cloned constructors
are not user-visible objects; they only differ in that they use
different offsets into the object based on whether it is a baseclass or
the principal object.
The test should definitely pass as-written, in my opinion, possibly
with a few additional words added to the output but not with more menu
choices. This is an implementation detail that we may want to show to
users but we should avoid requiring their knowledge of it at all
> Michael C
> 2002-02-14 Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com>
> * gdb.c++/ovldbreak.exp: Test breakpoints on the constructors.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer