From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 400 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2012 01:29:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 391 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2012 01:29:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:29:51 +0000 Received: from [68.96.200.16] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Td9zi-0004x2-JQ for gdb@sourceware.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:29:50 -0500 Message-ID: <50B41784.2080606@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:29:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Will therefore GDB utilize C++ or not? References: <20120330161403.GA17891@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa2rjkb8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4F832D5B.9030308@redhat.com> <20121122184637.GA29474@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20121122184637.GA29474@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da94017ac30dbd8ad331a4b7f627fd48e0b9f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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/msg00072.txt.bz2 On 11/22/12 10:46 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:31 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> If you asked me not too long ago, I'd have been strongly in favor >> of C++. However, that is no longer the case. I'm now pending >> towards "no C++". > I have re-read now the thread and I have not found any blocker issues left. > > Here is a plan that should IMHO satisfy all the requirements stated here. > I did not reply to C++ disagreements which were already well enough replied > here. > > > Current gdbserver will be also in C++. > > 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). > > There will be also separate minimal gdbserver in plain C. For some very > minimal targets still running Linux kernel but no longer having C++-capable > compiler or having some other problem running C++. There was stated no > concrete such target but maybe there exists one. 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. > I think for this it should be sufficient to announce an end-of-C point for gdbserver, tag it, and record it on a web page; while it's certainly possible that someone in the future will have need for a C-only gdbserver, I think the chances are vanishingly small, and we shouldn't be using up too many brain cycles designing it. People that are space-conscious are already using their own stubs or forked versions of gdbserver. I note for instance that we nearly doubled the size of gdbserver's code when we added target-side tracepoint bits a couple years ago, and I don't recall any grousing about it getting too big then. In a world where mega-programs like Firefox fit easily onto a cell phone *now*, I'm not just seeing that any future projects are going to be so tightly constrained that gdbserver size is noticeable. Stan stan@codesourcery.com