What's with all the Cisco stuff?

J.T. Conklin jtc@redback.com
Thu Aug 12 14:51:00 GMT 1999


>>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com> writes:
jtc>  At the very least, shouldn't the cisco specific code be explicitly 
jtc>  enabled with --enable-cisco-cruft or some such configure option?

Stan> I did consider this when evaluating Cisco's support bits, and rejected
Stan> any changes that would have required a special enable flag.  If the
Stan> presence of this code is making it difficult or impossible for you to
Stan> use GDB, then I can see adding it, but so far I haven't heard of any
Stan> usage problems.

But unlike the remote and monitor backends you mentioned in your
message, the KOD and mutant remote protocol are bound into every GDB
configuration, both native and embedded.  At the very best, these are
only valid for certain embedded toolchains for a single organization.
What value do these provide that justifies binding them in?

        --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
RedBack Networks


More information about the Gdb mailing list