Re: [cdt-dev] state of affairs for Signals Viewer in CDT?

[Tad Adams <tadams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the pointers to those two bugs Jonah. This came up internally for us, as our training team, and documentation was still referencing this functionality. I’ll spend some cycles looking into the flexible hierarchy support you referenced, and see if I can get a handle on what it would take to get the support working again. Thanks again for the pointers.

 

Regards,

Tad.

 

 

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jonah Graham
Sent: January 23, 2020 4:45 PM
To: CDT General developers list. <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] state of affairs for Signals Viewer in CDT?

 

Hi Ted,

 

It looks like you have dug up all the history there is on the Signals view. Perhaps it should have been removed from CDT when CDI was done as clearly no one has taken the time to provided the DSF backend for it in the Open Source version. I can't speak to the decision making beyond that. The only other issues that I can point you at is Bug 338908 which makes it possible to use Signals view with flexible hierarchy, a prerequisite for DSF support. And Bug 249220 which was the tracking bug for adding the support, but it has almost no info in it (I have have referenced your email now as that is very useful collection of decision making).

 

>  In which case is there a valid bug there for its removal?

 

No. We are in the state that someone may be using it. It can be considered under the CDT 10 release perhaps? 

 

@All Is anyone providing Signals view in their own DSF debuggers? 

 

> Is there an equivalent functionality to the signals viewer in CDT today, for a user of CDT wishing to change how the debugger handles a signal is there a current recommended approach?

 

I think this is a place where the improved Debugger Console integration is a catch all as you can access all GDB functionality that way. While you can do this on Windows, you don't get the nice GDB new-ui implementation. That work still needs to be completed on both the GDB and CDT side last I checked. (I do know of companies with non-GDB based debuggers who are supporting that flow on Windows, so I know CDT is not far from working).

 

> Is there any appetite to re-enable the Signals Viewer for DSF, or for a pull request that would do that?

 

I think you are in a better place to answer that question as you probably have some customer demand for it? A tested and complete solution would be welcome, but I am not in a position to comment on how much work that would be.

 

Thanks

Jonah

~~~
Jonah Graham
Kichwa Coders
www.kichwacoders.com

 

 

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Tad Adams <tadams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi All,

 

Would anyone be able to speak to the current state/direction of the Signals Viewer in CDT. Looking through the archive it sounds as though support for the the Signals Viewer was never added to DSF (this dates all the way back to 2010), at the time it was supported in the CDI gdb integration, the parity exercise in moving towards DSF seems to have identified the Signals Viewer having usability issues under CDI, and deemed low priority for adding support for it to DSF. With the removal of CDI from CDT 9, I’m left with the impression that the SignalsViewer is an entirely abandoned view that is still packaged? In which case is there a valid bug there for its removal?

 

Is there an equivalent functionality to the signals viewer in CDT today, for a user of CDT wishing to change how the debugger handles a signal is there a current recommended approach? Is there any appetite to re-enable the Signals Viewer for DSF, or for a pull request that would do that?

 

Below are the relevant threads I was able to dig up through the archive and the forums:

 

https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/239861/ (2009 question about the signals view being empty, responded with

with the explanation no support for it in DSF, only CDI)

 

Threads from April 2010, discussing the priority of support for the signal view in DSF as part of the parity exercise against CDI.

 

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cdt-dev/msg18288.html

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cdt-dev/msg18297.html

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cdt-dev/msg18279.html

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cdt-dev/msg18284.html

Regards,

Tad

---

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev

---

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.