From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26158 invoked by alias); 21 May 2012 18:08:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 26139 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2012 18:08:25 -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; Mon, 21 May 2012 18:08:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LI84bU005978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:08:09 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4LHK5mZ032749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 13:20:06 -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> <87ehqhfenc.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4FBA6583.5000002@redhat.com> <20120521161456.GA5429@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4FBA72B9.9010103@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:08:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4FBA72B9.9010103@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon, 21 May 2012 17:52:09 +0100") Message-ID: <87vcjpe9iy.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/msg00105.txt.bz2 Jan> Could you give specific still used device example where the current Jan> codebase is OK while the triple gdbserver size is no longer OK? Jan> All the discussions are still very abstract. Pedro> I should point out that that question is a bit backwards. If you can Pedro> shrink the storage to save costs, you'll do it. But obviously you won't Pedro> shrink more than what necessary to run your software. If size is a critical argument against C++, then it has to be a critical argument in other cases as well. I think it is important for us to establish the desirable bounds on the size of gdbserver, so that we can request this data in future gdbserver patch reviews. Tom