From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3734 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2008 17:48:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 3726 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2008 17:48:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:48:37 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JL005-0003kM-OB for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:48:29 +0000 Received: from 77.246.241.246 ([77.246.241.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:48:29 +0000 Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:48:29 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [patch] make --disable-gdbmi work Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <47A23493.5000508@qnx.com> <20080131205719.GA1887@caradoc.them.org> <47A2371C.3020402@qnx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 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/msg00025.txt.bz2 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