From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20032 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2012 21:28:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 20023 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2012 21:28:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausc60pc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:28:17 +0000 X-Loopcount0: from 10.170.28.39 From: To: , CC: , , Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:28:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <09787EF419216C41A903FD14EE5506DD0313E41791@AUSX7MCPC103.AMER.DELL.COM> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20120409190519.GA524@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F833D29.4050102@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 Yes, it's good to be watchful for code bloat on gdbserver. But a very big = difference between it and gdb is that the symbol tables are at the gdb end.= In our case, that's the main reason we use gdbserver. It would be tolera= ble for the executable to be bigger, but we don't have space for many of th= e inferior's symbol tables on the target system. paul -----Original Message----- From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf = Of Daniel Jacobowitz Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:06 PM To: Pedro Alves Cc: Jan Kratochvil; Tom Tromey; gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/09/2012 08:05 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:31 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> Indeed, gdbserver would need to remain pure C, >> [...] >>> This is important, because we want gdbserver to be usable in #1,=20 >>> resource constrained scenarios where the C++ dependency would be=20 >>> unacceptable. =A0We don't want there to need to be other=20 >>> gdbserver-like programs specialized for such environments, and=20 >>> gdbserver to be usable only on bigger machines. =A0We want gdbserver=20 >>> to run everywhere. =A0And #2, the debugger is one of the first=20 >>> programs that is desirable to get running on a new system/board. =A0Usu= ally you get C going much sooner than C++. The more things we add to gdbserver, the less I think it meets the goal of = "simple, light-weight target agent". I resisted code sharing with GDB for = a long time. If the consensus nowadays is that code sharing is the way to = go, then I think it behooves someone to figure out the needs of a modern li= ght-weight target agent that's a lot smaller than gdbserver. Yes, multiprocess debugging with gdbserver is an awesome development. No, you don't need it in the stage of system bringup where you don't have C= ++, if you're planning to have C++ eventually. So I think there's room for= a potential C++ gdbserver and a small C gdbserver. How did I end up being the curmudgeon? I'm confused. -- Thanks, Daniel