Since most if not all CDT debugger actions act against the standard
debug model extensions, I believe we can integrate DSF with existing
CDT views and actions without much trouble. If we run into problems we
will file patches. One exception may be the disassembly view(editor)
which will probably require a new API and a CDI implementation.
Cheers
Pawel
Mikhail Khodjaiants wrote:
Hi Pawel,
My questions was more about the
debugger related UI components (views and actions) we currently have in
CDT and how these components would coexist with DSF. My concern is that
if DSF contributes similar views and actions we will have duplicates
which is definitely not a good thing. What do you think?
Regards,
Mikhail
Doug Schaefer wrote:
Mikhail K was interested
in our plans for integrating DSF into the core CDT. I guess, in
summary, my plan is to move the host development support to whichever
framework works best and has the most contributors working on it. But
the goal is to support both DSF and CDI and allow tools integrators to
make the choice. And that includes ensuring the two play nicely
together.
This brought up a
question I have. Is anyone really working on making sure host
development works? I did a lot of work in CDT 4 to make sure MinGW
worked and to help Cygwin along. I will likely stop working on cygwin
in the future since my efforts there will be on supporting the CDT for
Windows distribution which is based on MinGW. I’m not sure anyone is
working on making sure Linux tools integrations continue to work,
although that is probably the easiest and we’ve been lucky enough that
there aren’t many issues there. I do know we have a lot of issues on
Mac OS X, which does make up a significant and growing part of our
community. All of the committers are focused on making sure their
commercial tools integrations continue to work, which they have all the
right to. But how do we make sure the problems that the community is
having with host development get addressed. Finding contributors with
vested interest in these platforms would be the best approach. Linux
should theoretically be easy, but I’ve almost given up hope for
Windows, thus the CDT for Window distro to help focus effort there, and
I have no idea about Mac…
We decided that for reference implementation of DSF that we will focus
solely on the Linux platform running the latest version of GDB.
However, our intention is to make it possible to create
platform-specific (and even version-specific) GDB integrations that
mostly reuse common components, but which can be maintained
independently from each other. Hopefully this will make it easier for
the community interested in a specific platform to take ownership of
maintaining it, while keeping the core implementation free of strange
legacy workarounds.
Cheers
Pawel
A reminder to register
for the CDT Summit, where this debug issue will be likely front and
center. We need to make sure we invite the Platform Debug team as well.
We continue to have no
requests to branch off the CDT 4.0.1 work. Until we have one, HEAD will
continue to be the 4.0.x stream.
Cheers,
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software
Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
--
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The
contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may
also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information
in any medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
|
