From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1732 invoked by alias); 21 May 2012 16:15:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 1705 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2012 16:15:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 May 2012 16:15:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LGF0Nl027269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 12:15:00 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4LGEuwn023805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:14:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20120521161456.GA5429@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <87ehqhfenc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4FBA6583.5000002@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FBA6583.5000002@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:55:47 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > In my quick experiment adding a cout << "foo" (-static-libstdc++ -flto -Os > + strip) more than triples the binary size. Could you give specific still used device example where the current codebase is OK while the triple gdbserver size is no longer OK? All the discussions are still very abstract. Thanks, Jan