From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28790 invoked by alias); 21 May 2012 18:10:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 28769 invoked by uid 22791); 21 May 2012 18:10:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 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 18:10:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LI8gc1017176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 14:10:41 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.17]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4LGx3V4031197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 21 May 2012 12:59:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:10:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? Message-ID: <20120521165903.GA6863@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FBA72B9.9010103@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00107.txt.bz2 On Mon, 21 May 2012 18:52:09 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > But obviously you won't shrink more than what necessary to run your > software. Proposed C++ is not a clear win-win, it is a compromise. I have found this discussion gives enough reasons (~from Tom) to consider C++ "very important". The size has some importance but these mails try to decide whether the size regressions is globally as important as the C++ benefits for GDB or not. If the size is important enough then there is also the alternative gdbserver for bootstraps without C++ (older FSF gdbserver, RDA, #ifdef-out-ed HEAD FSF gdbserver etc.). It has also various disadvantages but again I consider them globally less important than the C++ benefits for GDB. > Google around for OpenWrt or DD-WRT for example, to find configurations > where 4-32MB flash is common. This is not the specific enough answer I was asking for. Thanks, Jan