Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model

[Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Adam,
This is very useful information.  Could you clarify though, do you write 
views and UI code that interacts with other vendor's debuggers as well?

Thanks
Pawel

Adam Finucane wrote:
> Hello Pawel,
>
> Just letting you known that there are some third party tools that use the CDT 
> debugger APIs, namely us.
>
> We use the existing CDI debugger framework to provide simulators and hardware 
> debuggers for some embedded microprocessors. The simulator is pure Java, the 
> in circuit debugger is a mix of Java and JNI, we don't use GDB.
>
> We have our own low level framework from which we implement specific debuggers 
> for each chip we want to support. We provide the common glue between the CDI 
> interfaces and our own low level interfaces.
>
> We haven't gone into complex breakpoints yet, I can see that this could be a 
> problem if we do try to implement them, but generally speaking we have the 
> interface to be good so far. Some small issues have popped up, basically 
> memory spaces not being supported but I understand that this is being 
> implemented in the next release of CDT, and it wasn't difficult to work 
> around. The other issue that popped up is, because we didn't use GDB, we had 
> to implement our own expression parser. We implemented a bare bones 
> 'expression parser' that simple parses literals, but it would be nice if 
> there was a framework all ready in place and all that would have to be done 
> would be to provide the sizes of types and symbol lookups.
>
> Adam Finucane
>
> HI-TECH Software
> E-mail: adam@xxxxxxxxxx  
> Web   : www.htsoft.com   
>
>
> On Saturday 20 May 2006 07:53, Pawel Piech wrote:
>   
> > 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
> > >       
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdt-dev mailing list
> > cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
> >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>