Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work

Vladimir Prus
2008-02-01T17:48:57Z

Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:

> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:50:27PM -0500, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
>>> The attached patch fixes the problem.
>>
>> My opinion is that we don't want this functionality any more. MI used
>> to be optional, but it is a central part of GDB nowadays, and
>> conditional compilation is hard to maintain.
>>
>
> It certainly adds some effort to maintenance, but it's not as bad as it
> may sound, especially since the change is not extensive at all (see the
> patch).
>
> For embedded systems, it is important to have as small a binary as
> possible, and if we can reduce it with reasonable effort, I would say, why
> not?

Only if you're running gdb itself on an embedded target, which might not
be the best idea -- you'd need the binaries with debug symbols on the
embedded system, and you'd need memory where gdb can store same debug symbols
read from files, and so on.

- Volodya