On 10/03/2014 09:12 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
A debugger not knowing whether a special member function was explicitly defaulted, implicitly declared or explicitly defined seems less confusion than not knowing whether it was deleted. But there are some subtle cases where knowing whether a constructor was user defined or explicitly defaulted do matter for whether the default constructor might have been implicitly generated.
Can you elaborate?
So like the deleted case this patch introduces a new attribute DW_AT_GNU_defaulted that gets attached to the function declaration. Note that since this is for declarations we explicitly test for DECL_DEFAULTED_IN_CLASS_P and ignore any implementation definitions that use = default; outside the class body.
Hmm, I'm dubious about this choice. How do you expect a consumer to use this information?
Jason
