From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32346 invoked by alias); 18 May 2012 19:55:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 32338 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2012 19:55:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 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; Fri, 18 May 2012 19:55:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4IJt5qh031077 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 15:55:05 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4IJt3VT021780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 18 May 2012 15:55:04 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:41:31 +0100") Message-ID: <87ehqhfenc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.95 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00092.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> This is important, because we want gdbserver to be usable in #1, Pedro> resource constrained scenarios where the C++ dependency would be Pedro> unacceptable. I wonder whether you would reconsider this given the size measurements I did. In particular, C++ is something like 3% space overhead today, and that gdbserver is already ~300K. I think that size growth is quite acceptable. Pedro> We don't want there to need to be other gdbserver-like programs Pedro> specialized for such environments, and gdbserver to be usable Pedro> only on bigger machines. We want gdbserver to run everywhere. The recent gdb-patches thread from Jonathan Larmour indicates that we already lost this one. He was concerned about the use of 2183 bytes. Pedro> And #2, the debugger is one of the first programs that is Pedro> desirable to get running on a new system/board. Usually you get Pedro> C going much sooner than C++. I think there are multiple options for this scenario. People could start with a basic port of RDA, or an older gdbserver, or just bump up the priority of getting C++ working. Tom