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

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.


Spear, Aaron wrote:

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...

-----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?


Ken Ryall wrote:

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 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
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.


P.S. I just signed up for dsdp-dd-dev and cdt-dev... better late then never.

Oberhuber, Martin wrote:

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.

Martin Oberhuber - WindRiver, Austria
-----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


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.


-----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!


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"
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


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
some work in this direction. Is there any new information available on what they are doing?

Mikhail Khodjaiants
----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Watson"
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


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
of CDT
debugger functionality in the parallel debugger implementation, it would make sense to try and combine efforts here.


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.

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
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
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
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
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).


cdt-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
cdt-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
dsdp-dd-dev mailing list

Back to the top