From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16078 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2008 19:06:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 16067 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2008 19:06:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qnxmail.qnx.com (HELO qnxmail.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:06:14 +0000 Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.42.96.5]) by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28617; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 13:53:00 -0500 Received: from [10.42.100.129] (dhcp-100-129 [10.42.100.129]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28296; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:06:11 -0500 Message-ID: <47A36DA3.2080804@qnx.com> Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:06:00 -0000 From: Aleksandar Ristovski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work References: <47A23493.5000508@qnx.com> <20080131205719.GA1887@caradoc.them.org> <47A2371C.3020402@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2 Doug Evans wrote: > On Jan 31, 2008 1:01 PM, 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? > > [fwiw] > > The patch appeals to the minimalist side in me. And given its trivial > nature, it could go in without formally committing to the intended > goal. If later things get unwieldy we can revisit whether to support > minimal builds then. > > btw, do we have automated builds+tests for gdb? > Yes, Vladimir correctly pointed out - my argument about reducing the code size is not really a good one... I still think the patch is useful, if for no other reason, to keep dependencies single directional (mi -> gdb).