Re: [MiNT] large binaries with MiNTLib 0.55.2

["Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:24:12AM +0200, Tomas Berndtsson wrote:
> "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de> writes:
> 
> > Currently the only use for debugging information is that you can
> > use the program addr2line to calculate a source line number from
> > a crash dump as given by the MiNT kernel.  Andreas Baer is working
> > on Paral to make it evaluate the debugging information too, so that
> > you can do source level debugging with Paral.
> 
> No chance of getting gdb ported?

You need two things for gdb: A BFD backend and the system dependent
stuff for tracing etc.  The BFD backend is already there (in the
Binutils), the tracing stuff can principally be taken from the old gdb
port.  All that's left to do is to implement that in a current gdb
source tree.

> I see. Well, I won't complain then. :) I got that feeling too, when
> comparing some of the headers from 0.53 and 0.55.2, that they look a
> lot more like glibc now, which is usually a good thing for porting
> programs. 

In fact, a lot of them are identical.  Yes, I thought of porting, too,
when I did that.  The other reason was to prepare for porting the GNU
libc to MiNT one day.  If there will be shared libs then it would
probably a good idea to use the GNU libc at least for MiNT shared libs
(because they won't run on TOS/Magic anyway).  That would save a lot of
space currently wasted for emulations for TOS/Magic in each binary
linked against the MiNTLib.  The static library could still contain the
emulation code to allow distributing statically linked libraries for
non-MiNT.

> > But the actual problem is not that the MiNTLib has increased in
> > size.  The problem is the absence of shared libraries under MiNT.
> > However, to implement the tools necessary for shared lib support
> > you need a stable libc.
> 
> Yes, I agree. I haven't followed the SLB discussion here very closely,
> but I agree MiNT would really improve with shared libs.

Neither did I follow.  But I think that there is agreement that the SLB
technique is not suitable for a standard libc.

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-saarland.de/
Send your spam to president@whitehouse.gov and your replies to
mailto:guido at freemint dot de