This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb.cp/templates.exp, ctor/dtor breakpoints, etc....
- From: Christophe LYON <christophe dot lyon at st dot com>
- To: Christophe LYON <christophe dot lyon at st dot com>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:11:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: gdb.cp/templates.exp, ctor/dtor breakpoints, etc....
- References: <49705F42.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090116150357.GA14717@caradoc.them.org>
On 16.01.2009 16:03, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:19:46AM +0100, Christophe LYON wrote:
If I take the example of PR 1112 (now bugzilla #8217), which is an issue
with destructor breakpoints, the corresponding test in templates.exp
used to pass with my compiler, until I stopped emitting the
While trying to improve my Open64/Gcc-3-3-3 based compiler results on the
gdb-6.8 testsuite, I noticed on gdb.cp/templates.exp that even on
x86/GCC-4.1.x there are still several KFAIL tests dating back to 2003.
In particular, there are issues when setting breakpoints on ctor/dtor.
I thought that the recent support for multiple breakpoints would fix
this, so I am a bit surprised.
They've all got PRs associated with them that explain the problems.
Most of them seem to deal with menus or with the names of the
constructors/destructors; we've mostly fixed breakpoints by line
Could someone give me some updated status in this area: should the tests
be revisited, or is it GDB itself that should be fixed, or GCC?
In general we use kfail only for GDB bugs, not GCC bugs.
Doing this, I follow GCC behaviour, but I get a regression. If we don't
consider this a GCC bug, it means that the way GDB recognizes ctor/dtor
(any probably any overloaded function) is to be revisited? Am I right?
Note that I am not asking for someone to do the job, I may have a look
at it myself; I just want to make sure it is the right approach.