[
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
|
Aaron,
Thanks, that's exactly what I was getting at.
- Ken
> From: "ext Spear, Aaron" <aaron_spear@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: Device Debugging developer discussions <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 07:40:56 -0700
> To: Device Debugging developer discussions <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "CDT
> General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Conversation: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model
>
> 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
