This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: How to setup a breakpoint on constructor
- From: Roland Zerek <rolandz at poczta dot fm>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>,gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:11:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: How to setup a breakpoint on constructor
- References: <20040715103016.903344B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>
Użytkownik Michael Elizabeth Chastain napisał:
See the PROBLEMS file:
gdb/1091: Constructor breakpoints ignored
gdb/1193: g++ 3.3 creates multiple constructors: gdb 5.3 can't set breakpoints
Well, I am using gdb-6.0 and gcc-3.4.0. Seems that problems remain...
When gcc 3.x compiles a C++ constructor or C++ destructor, it generates
2 or 3 different versions of the object code. These versions have
unique mangled names (they have to, in order for linking to work), but
they have identical source code names, which leads to a great deal of
confusion. Specifically, if you set a breakpoint in a constructor or a
destructor, gdb will put a breakpoint in one of the versions, but your
program may execute the other version. This makes it impossible to set
breakpoints reliably in constructors or destructors [...]
However this is logical to have mangled names. And of course few
constructors. Even ISO says that the default constructor may be created by
the compiler in some situations...
Things you can try:
. modify your program so that the constructors that you want to
breakpoint call some function that is not a constructor, and break
on that.
I've already been considerring it.
. run 'nm a.out | c++filt' to find the symbols in your program.
break on the absolute address: "break *0x01234567". this is
very crude (1960's technique) but it does work.
Seems nice. However my MinGW (Win XP) seems not to have these. I will take
a look of it later :-)
. use nm, c++filt, and 'strip -N' to strip out symbols for
not-in-charge constructors. This is scriptable, if someone
wants to write a little script.
What the "not-in-charge" means?
Thx for reply.
--
Roland
r o l a n d z (at) poczta fm