Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-debug-dev] register groups 
> 
> I was wandering what is the current support for "Register groups" in
> CDT.=20
> 
> Our beta product is based on CDT 2.0.2 and that version CDT simply
> inserts one register group - "main". Adding multiple registry groups is
> pretty important usability feature for out customers so we modified CDT
> and GDB to support multiple registry groups.=20
> 
> The way I did it was by adding custom MI/GDB command that returns the
> registry groups and the association between a group and a register. At
> that time I propose the change but it was rejected since it was based on
> custom MI/GDB command.=20
> 

Correct, the way your patch was done, IIRC it calls some MI commands
that no other base GDB would support.
And our suggestion to you was that you submit your new MI commands to
the GDB folks so it could be "standard" then no need of any special hacks.
"Register Groups" is a common problem and I'm sure other folks would
appreciate the code.  Meaning .. it is not necessary to come up
with an implemention in GDB but at least to define the semantic in GDB/MI docs.
... of course implementation would be welcome 8-)

> If there is current plan in CDT to support registry group, I would like
> to know and possibly comply with it.=20
> 
> If there is no plan right now I can rework my implementation. I can
> define an extension point that provides registry grouping and not rely
> on custom MI/GDB command. There will be a default extension
> implementation that will add the "main" group. Other plugin can add
> their own registry grouping providers.=20
> 
> Let me know what you think. Are there other embedded developers that
> would like to see this feature in CDT?
> 

How about simply to define your new command in the CommandFactory,
CommandFactory.createRegisterGroups();

if that command !exists, we fall back to the old "main" group, or take advantage
of it.  Hopefully with time we could submit this new MI command to the GDB folks.

The MI protocol can be difficult when dealing with the different versions:
"mi0", "mi1", "mi2", "mi3" (glossing over the problems of different version of gdb)
and now adding different flavor of MI based on different gdb distribution ...  Ouch!!

<IMHO>
I think we should simply talk to the GDB folks instead of trying to customize/extend
MI then try to work around it under the CDT.  There is enough hacks within GDB/MI
to deal with what 0yvind likes to call "Real problem facing the embedded developers
under GDB" 8-).
</IMHO>

> I search Bugzilla for registry grouping entry but I couldn't find any.=20
> Should I file one?
> 

Sure, we can track this down.

Back to the top