From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 527 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2008 17:40:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 475 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2008 17:40:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:40:04 +0000 Received: from zps75.corp.google.com (zps75.corp.google.com [172.25.146.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m11Hdm1b023901 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:39:49 GMT Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wafl24.prod.google.com [10.114.188.24]) by zps75.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m11HdirG011527 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:39:47 -0800 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id l24so688012waf.17 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:39:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.57.1 with SMTP id f1mr4311516waa.15.1201887587389; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:39:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.13.5 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:39:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:40:00 -0000 From: "Doug Evans" To: "Aleksandar Ristovski" Subject: Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <47A2371C.3020402@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47A23493.5000508@qnx.com> <20080131205719.GA1887@caradoc.them.org> <47A2371C.3020402@qnx.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00024.txt.bz2 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?