| Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model |
Hi Vitaly,
How far along are you on implementing the mixed language debugger? Is this going to be released into open source, or is this a commercial product?
Doug G
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vitaly Provodin
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:24 AM
To: CDT General developers list.Cc: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Re: [cdt-dev] Re: New Debug Model
Hello Pavel,
Another "third party tool": we are working on so called mixed mode debugger which is intended to debug Java applications with JNI libraries. Our approach is based on the platform debug model and we try to use the CDT and JDT functionality as much as possible.
Here is the foils describing our visions: http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/~checkout~/cdt-home/presentations/spring2006/debugger_for_eclipse.ppt?cvsroot=Tools_Project
Vitaly Provodin,
Intel Middleware Products Division
On 5/23/06, Pawel Piech < pawel.piech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>
_______________________________________________
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