http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #13 from Tom Tromey ---
I was debugging this today:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15975
... and ran across this PR again.
GCC is still emitting a virtual destructor with no indication of
its vtable element location:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill 2013-02-26
04:35:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> What I'd like to know is what is guaranteed.
> Previously gcc didn't emit the linkage name for any destructor -- but
> this would make the proposed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #11 from Tom Tromey 2013-02-18 15:20:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I don't think such an attribute belongs in the DWARF standard, since this is
> very much an internal detail of the ABI; another ABI might have just a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-01-31
19:32:35 UTC ---
I don't think such an attribute belongs in the DWARF standard, since this is
very much an internal detail of the ABI; another ABI might have just a single
destructor with magic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey 2012-07-13 17:14:38
UTC ---
Likewise there isn't a super way to find out which
constructor is in-charge. The only way I could come up
with is to look at the linkage name; but this requires
excessive knowledge of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #8 from Tom Tromey 2012-07-12 18:34:08
UTC ---
I'd like to ping this again.
I've been working on adding support for new and delete to gdb.
The missing debuginfo here is a barrier to this.
I think gdb would generally like to call the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey 2011-05-24 13:10:13
UTC ---
*** Bug 49131 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--- Comment #6 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 20:47 ---
The patch looks good. I don't think we want to add an extension for this; if
we need an additional feature, it should be standardized.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37237
--- Comment #5 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-26 12:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=19968)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19968&action=view)
Candidate patch
Here is what I think is happening, at least on gcc 4.5.
A/ The deleting dtor's DIE *is* being ge
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-23 16:55 ---
It seems to me that, by analogy with constructors, we would want debuginfo
for all the destructors, so that "break X::~X" would put breakpoints in all
the clones.
Then we would need additional information to distingui
--- Comment #3 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-21 16:47 ---
Okay Daniel, your POV makes sense to me. Thank you.
I am preparing a patch.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 15:52 ---
The type of the class only contains one destructor. If you have to pick one
for a debugger to call, in-charge makes the most sense. For other debugger
purposes they all make equal sense (or nonsense).
If you want to
--- Comment #1 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-12 15:48 ---
There are actually up to three destructors:
- an in-charge one (or complete-object one)
- a not-in-charge one
- a deleting in-charge one
The three of them are useful in different ways and in different circumstances.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
14 matches
Mail list logo
