[
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 | 
Hi Aaron,
I understand what you're getting at.  Both the platform debug model and 
CDT (and JDT) provide a set of standard interfaces for the various types 
of objects in a given debugger implementation.  So I would love to know 
how many third party tools are there that take advantage of these APIs 
and with what level of success.  Also, assuming that there are some such 
tools out there, does it mean that whatever new debug model we come up 
with, will it have to be compatible with these legacy debug models? 
In our experience, we get sporadic requests for APIs to integrate third 
party tools with, and in some cases the platform debug model is 
sufficient, but in some cases it is not... especially with respect to 
breakpoints.  This is fine, it can be argued that if we implemented the 
CDI interfaces, we would have a higher-level of compatibility with 3rd 
party tools because it provides more functionality.  But it seems that 
there is always going to be some custom functionality in embedded 
debuggers (for example specific types of hardware breakpoints), that are 
not going to be covered by any standard API.  Plus having these 
expansive sets of interfaces can be rather expensive to design, 
implement, and maintain.  Meanwhile, it's so hard to tell what 
functionality a 3rd party vendor would actually use.
So I'm wondering whether there are more specific use cases that people 
know of which would help us come up with alternatives to this standard 
hierarchical interface approach.  An example of this might be for each 
debugger implementation to expose sets of commands (such as resetting, 
downloading, setting breakpoints, etc.) that can be applied on the 
different objects belonging to that debugger, then have some limited 
framework that would let users and tool vendors use these commands in 
scripts or some other configurable mechanisms.
-Pawel
Spear, Aaron wrote:
Pawel,
I will take a stab at what I think Ken is getting at:  I would think the
use case would be any other vendor that wanted to build something on top
of a debugger and have it work with multiple debuggers.  So in theory
they write their tool and then can run it on top of anyones embedded
debugger (CDT or WorkBench or EDGE or ...).  Say for example an RTOS
vendor that wanted to write kernel awareness of some kind that listened
for events and then iterated global variables displaying their data
structures on a target stop.  Another example would be semiconductor
vendors who want to add views and such that are specific to features of
their chips and have it run on multiple debuggers.  We are asked about
this all the time.  More than once I have heard "We can just write an
Eclipse plugin right?"  Sure provided the framework is there...
cheers,
Aaron 
-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pawel Piech
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:44 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Cc: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model
Hi Ken,
I totally agree with everything you're saying, it's just a really tough
challenge: to design a standard debug model implementation in
components, such that they can be selectively replaced to provide custom
functionality... a very worthy goal though.
Still what I'm struggling with right now is the question of "other
tools" and interoperability between models.  What are the specific
use-cases for other tools accessing the debug model?  And what features
require debug models to collaborate with each other?
Thanks
Pawel
Ken Ryall wrote:
  
Pawel,
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: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/DSDP/DD/DebugModel
Pawel Piech wrote:
    
      
Hi All,
I'll start off by apologizing.  I've been meaning to edit the 
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/DSDP/DD/DebugModel 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 http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
-----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 http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
-----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.
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/CDT/planning/4.0
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
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
      
        
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
    
      
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
  
    
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev