RE: [cdt-debug-dev] register groups

["Alexiev, Dobrin" <dalexiev@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Alain, 

-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-debug-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-debug-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alain Magloire
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:02 PM
To: cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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.

>>>>> That is exactly how I did it so it works in both cases. If GDB
doesn't support the command it ignores the GDB error and only inserts
the "main" group. If GDB answered correctly it inserts the groups. Do
you want me to attach the patch to the bug I just filed - 81351 -"CDT
adds only one register group - "main". I will also attach the command
specification to the bug. 

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 can follow with the GDB folks. Have you ever done it? I can
easily gather the changes we did with GDB and submit a patch there. Do
you know the process? Do you know someone I can contact for that? Any
help will be appreciated!

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

Sure, we can track this down.

>>>>> I filed 81351 -"CDT adds only one register group - "main" to track
this issue".
_______________________________________________
cdt-debug-dev mailing list
cdt-debug-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-debug-dev