remove INCLUDE_NMT?

[Aleksei Voitylov]

Hi,

we still build and use Minimal in production for constrained
environments. What is the impact of unconditional inclusion of NMT in
terms of static footprint?

If it is negligible, I'm fine with it becoming unconditional. If not,
maybe it's best to have some weak guarantees where we fix such configs
occasionally.

-Aleksei

On 20/01/2022 09:58, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have NMT, and NMT can be disabled at build time. It can also be disabled
> at runtime. NMT disabling at build time causes INCLUDE_NMT to be false.
>
> So we have four scenarios:
>
> 1 nmt disabled at build (minimal VM)
> 2 nmt enabled, off
> 3 nmt enabled, summary mode
> 4 nmt enabled, detail mode
>
> Removing (1) would simplify code and be one less configuration to test. Do
> we really need the ability to exclude NMT from build? We have other
> facilities which are not strictly necessary either but which we cannot
> disable, e.g. UL. So it feels a bit arbitrary to take that much care for
> NMT. Was there a reason for that?
>
> It only matters for minimal builds, since I don't know any real VM out
> there which does not come with NMT.
>
> NMT comes with a few static data, but those are only a few KB and we could
> instead allocate them on demand. NMT is not difficult to port either, which
> would be another reason to keep it optional.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks, Thomas