From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12880 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2012 21:42:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 12871 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2012 21:42:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3,RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from new.toad.com (HELO new.toad.com) (209.237.225.253) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:42:48 +0000 Received: from new.toad.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by new.toad.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAMLgg2N005121; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:42:42 -0800 Message-Id: <201211222142.qAMLgg2N005121@new.toad.com> To: Jan Kratochvil cc: Pedro Alves , Tom Tromey , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? In-reply-to: <20121122184637.GA29474@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20121122184637.GA29474@host2.jankratochvil.net> Comments: In-reply-to Jan Kratochvil message dated "Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:46:37 +0100." Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:42:00 -0000 From: John Gilmore 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 > For most embedded Linux kernel targets it will be enough to build the standard > fully featured gdbserver with static libstdc++ (making it only ~2x larger). It becomes ~2x larger for what benefit? > There will be also separate minimal gdbserver in plain C. > ... This minimal server has no > need for non-stop/multi-inferior etc., it will be created by stripping down > the current one; but in fact one can be also easily code it from scratch. Why in heaven's name would you take working code that's in the release today, and "strip it down" to be less functional? What's wrong with continuing to ship it merely the way it is? John