Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model


For now just a couple thoughts:

The new platform model is wonderfully flexible but a model for C/C++
debuggers needs to provide enough common structure to make it reusable
across back-ends. Otherwise there is not much to leverage and other tools
don't have a way to address debugger stuff. The more common elements we can
put into the model, the more we can collaborate.

A debug model for C/C++ should as much as possible allow the back-end to
provide as rich a debug experience as it can. That's not to say that the
model has to let every back-end interact exactly the way it wants to, some
glue and various adjustments will usually be necessary.

A debug model should address the most common debugger use cases and let
back-ends opt out and do their own thing when they do something wildly
different. But in those cases the benefits of the model should also provide
an incentive for people to adjust their debugger back-ends to better match
the model.

Looking forward to a more in-depth discussion later on.

Thanks - Ken

> From: ext Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Device Debugging developer discussions <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:03:29 -0700
> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Device Debugging developer discussions <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model (was: Editor
> technology subgroup)
> As promised, I started on defining the requirements for an optimal debug
> model design for embedded debugging.  I took kind of a fun approach to
> the problem, so please let me know if you think it's confusing or
> inappropriate.
> -Pawel
> See:
> Pawel Piech wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I'll start off by apologizing.  I've been meaning to edit the
>> to start
>> collecting requirements, but it seems like such a daunting task that I
>> ended up putting it off week after week :-(  So rather than make up
>> more excuses I'll make sure that I get started on it today.  If anyone
>> already has a set of requirements written up, please feel free to post
>> them on the twiki page or mail them to the list, it'll make this
>> process a lot easier.
>> Separately, we have been working on a prototype that we will commit to
>> CVS shortly.  This is the same prototype that we talked about in the
>> February DSDP meeting, except we have rewritten it a couple of time
>> since to take advantage of standards that are in JDK 5.0 and in OSGI.
>> At this point, aside from javadocs and example code, the prototype
>> code is ready to commit, we're just waiting to get the required
>> signatures from within the company.  So rather than try to describe
>> what this thing is about, I'd rather wait another week or so and just
>> post the code for everyone to look at.
>> -Pawel
>> P.S. I just signed up for dsdp-dd-dev and cdt-dev... better late then
>> never.
>> Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> while Doug Gaff is at the WR User Conference in Orlando,
>>> let me go ahead and start the new thread :-)
>>> Yes, Pawel P has made quite some progress on prototyping
>>> against the Flexible Debug Model. Sine quite a bit of this
>>> is based on former WR proprietary code, we'll need to wait
>>> for IP clearance before we can actually make a contribution.
>>> We hope this to happen anytime soon.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>> -- 
>>> Martin Oberhuber - WindRiver, Austria
>>> +43(662)457915-85
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ewa Matejska
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 8:43 PM
>>>> To: CDT General developers list.; Device Debugging developer
>>>> discussions
>>>> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I propose starting a new thread for future communications about the
>>>> Debug Model since there's a technology subgroup in the DSDP-DD.  I
>>>> would
>>>> like to leave this thread for Editor enhancement/ideas/requests
>>>> focusing
>>>> on embedded development.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ewa.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> On Behalf Of Greg Watson
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:45 AM
>>>> To: CDT General developers list.
>>>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>> I got confused by all the Dougs. :-) I'd like to work with anyone
>>>> on  this!
>>>> Greg
>>>> On May 12, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Mikhail Khodjaiants wrote:
>>>>> Doug S,
>>>>> I sent my previous message before I saw yours. It is for Doug G
>>>>> Mikhail K
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Schaefer"
>>>> <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:46 AM
>>>>> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>>>> Which Doug is everyone talking about :).
>>>>>> Since the Greg's note was sent to cdt-dev, I thought it was for
>>>>>> me. This
>>>>>> note sounds like it is for Doug G...
>>>>>> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
>>>>>> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-
>>>>>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Mikhail Khodjaiants
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:35 AM
>>>>>> To: CDT General developers list.
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>> There was a special group formed among others at the last DSDP
>>>>>> meeting to
>>>>>> work on the design of the debug model. I volunteered to
>>>>>> participate, but I
>>>>>> haven't heard anything since. You mentioned that Pavel and
>>>> Ted are     
>>>>>> doing
>>>>>> some work in this direction. Is there any new information
>>>>>> available on what
>>>>>> they are doing?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mikhail Khodjaiants
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Watson"
>>>>>> <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:11 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>>> I wonder if we could be involved in the design of the next
>>>>>>> generation
>>>>>>> debugger model? We're also looking at how to use the flexible
>>>>>>> debug model
>>>>>>>           for the parallel debugger. Since we reused
>>>>>>> considerable
>>>> portions     
>>>>>>> of CDT
>>>>>>> debugger functionality in the parallel debugger  implementation,
>>>>>>> it would
>>>>>>> make sense to try and combine efforts here.
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>> On May 12, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW, Welcome Toni!
>>>>>>>> We've been in need of some focus on the CDT editor for a while
>>>>>>>> and  I
>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>> forward to your contributions.
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
>>>>>>>> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC member
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:43 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Device Debugging developer discussions
>>>>>>>> Cc: Leherbauer, Anton; CDT General developers list.
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>> I've asked Toni Leherbauer from my team to provide input
>>>> on the      
>>>>>>>> editor.
>>>>>>>> Toni is currently looking at enhancing the CDT editor and is
>>>>>>>> collecting
>>>>>>>> some features on the CDT project plan.
>>>>>>>> Since there is interest in the editor in both the CDT and DD
>>>>>>>> projects,
>>>>>>>> we should keep both groups in the loop.  And of course, we
>>>>>>>> should have
>>>>>>>> one editor solution in the end (in CDT).  We started
>>>> discussing    
>>>>>>>> this in
>>>>>>>> the DD project in Toronto simply as a way to capture
>>>>>>>> requirements as
>>>>>>>> they related to debugging.
>>>>>>>> Also, as I mentioned on the recent DD call, Ted and Pawel are
>>>>>>>> working on
>>>>>>>> a prototype for a generic debugger implementation of the
>>>> Eclipse     
>>>>>>>> 3.2
>>>>>>>> debug model interfaces (EDMI 3.2 for short).  The goal
>>>> is that this
>>>>>>>> prototype will form the basis of a next-generation debugger
>>>>>>>> model that
>>>>>>>> benefits folks using CDT and folks working directly with the
>>>>>>>> Eclipse
>>>>>>>> platform today.  We intend to get this committed in the
>>>> next few     
>>>>>>>> weeks
>>>>>>>> so that the community can start discussing architecture,
>>>>>>>> interfaces, and
>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>> So regarding the editor, I see open questions around how we
>>>>>>>> integrate
>>>>>>>> disassembly, breakpoints, instruction pointers, etc. with a new
>>>>>>>> debugger
>>>>>>>> implementation.  I am also wondering how the editor will
>>>> deal with
>>>>>>>> multiple debug engines simultaneously (for example, how
>>>> to set the
>>>>>>>> default breakpoint scope).
>>>>>>>> Doug
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
> dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top