From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19311 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2012 21:14:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 19298 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Nov 2012 21:13:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:13:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qARLDNaj010722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:13:23 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qARLDGSv025146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:13:17 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: Paul_Koning@Dell.com, 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> <50B41784.2080606@earthlink.net> <50B42C86.4060900@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50B42C86.4060900@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:59:18 -0800") Message-ID: <87vccqbvgz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00080.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> It's always seemed a little sloppy to me that we advertise gdbserver Stan> as suitable for targets, but don't actually track its size, consider Stan> each patch's effect, etc. For instance, a one-liner that brings in a Stan> bunch of library code might be more problematic for footprint than a Stan> page of new code. Yeah, this was my main takeaway from the last round of C++ discussions. If we are serious about gdbserver size, then we must set some constraints, and reject patches that violate these. However, I tend to think that either some interested party will have to design a compile-time-configuration approach for gdbserver, so that its size can be kept in check; or that we'll want to have two reference gdbservers, and let the current one grow feature-by-feature. There's always RDA: http://sourceware.org/rda/ Maybe there are others as well. Tom