[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
|
Hi Ewa,
I haven't thought about the workflow details,
but I'd presume that the (Source-)Editor should
not be closed automatically.
Depending on the debug mode and the availability
of source info, the debugger opens/brings-on-top either
the Editor or the Disassembly.
That's quite simple and straightforward, I think.
Toni
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ewa Matejska
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:18 PM
> To: Device Debugging developer discussions
> Cc: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>
> Hi Toni,
>
> Thanks for joining the discussion it sounds like you have a lot of
> experience addressing this feature request.
>
> Regarding your idea of turning the Disassembly View into the "Editor",
> what would that look like to the user? Is the actual editor
> closed and
> the debugging is driven through the Disassembly View or are
> both of them
> open? Is this approach part of the Wind River product? If
> so, could
> you send a screenshot of what that looks like?
>
> Thank You,
> Ewa.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Leherbauer, Anton
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:29 AM
> To: Device Debugging developer discussions
> Cc: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
>
> Hi,
>
> Regarding the patent discussion:
> My (personal) impression is that you can patent almost
> everything. It's the list of claims following the abstract
> that make it unique. But I'm no patent lawyer, either.
>
>
> Regarding the idea to merge the disassembly view into the
> editor, ie. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=39644
>
> We had a similar discussion at Wind River some time ago
> about whether disassembly and editor should be merged.
> The result was: Keep it separate. (BTW, I had to do both)
>
> The main reason IMHO is that the editor and disassembly
> worlds are quite different, e.g.
>
> - writable / readonly
> - line numbers / addresses
> - "real" source file / dynamically generated text
> - one source file / potentially multiple sources (and languages!)
> - fixed text size / limited only by address space
>
> These differences pose some problems, e.g.
> - The editor has a special "debug mode" which the user
> (and client code) probably need to be aware of.
> - Behaviour, enablement and availability of actions dealing
> with the editor depends on the "mode" the editor is
> currently working in. Breakpoint actions are an example.
> - If folding is to be used to implement this feature,
> how does that interfere with the existing code folding?
> - Editors for other languages would have to replicate
> this feature, unless it is pushed to the Eclipse platform.
> - What about the reused/inherited features of the Eclipse text
> editor framework?
> - common text editor actions
> - line number ruler column
> - ...
>
> How about turning the Disassembly View
> into a editor, instead? This is not a big
> difference implementation-wise.
> Thus switching between source, mixed and disassembly
> (ie. switching between debug modes)
> happens in the same screen space (the editor area).
> And if the disassembly even learns to highlight
> the source code as the editor does,
> it pretty much will look like a normal source
> editor with mixed-in disassembly,
> although it actually is a disassembly view
> with mixed-in source, pretending to be an editor.
>
>
> Just my 2 Euro Cents.
>
> Toni
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gaff, Doug
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:43 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
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
> > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:18 PM
> > > To: Device Debugging developer discussions
> > > Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
> > >
> > > Well, the Using Visual C++ 5 book that I have in front of
> > me right now,
> > > copyright 1997, shows their Disassembly View which
> > interleaves source and
> > > disassembly.
> > >
> > > Mind you it's a view and not an editor. But then, why would
> > you edit in
> > > this
> > > window? Does the assembly get updated based on the source
> > changes you
> > > make?
> > > Can you edit the assembly and have the source updated?
> > (That'd be cool,
> > > BTW
> > > :).
> > >
> > > What was the original use case again?
> > >
> > > 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
> > Recoskie, Chris
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:30 PM
> > > To: Device Debugging developer discussions
> > > Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
> > >
> > > I'm guessing the person I was talking to was referring to
> > US patent #
> > > 6,493,868. Like I said I'm not a patent lawyer so I'm
> not going to
> > > comment as to whether or not it is truly applicable or not.
> > It seems
> > > very broad and I'm not sure of the rules as to how it does
> > or does not
> > > apply to specific features in IDEs.
> > >
> > > Anyway take a look and due your due diligence. It may be a
> > non issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > =====================
> > >
> > >
> > > United States Patent 6,493,868
> > > DaSilva , et al. December 10, 2002
> > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > > --------
> > > Integrated development tool
> > >
> > >
> > > Abstract
> > > An integrated code development tool, comprising of an
> > editor, a project
> > > management and build system, a debugger, a profiler, and
> a graphical
> > > data visualization system. The editor is operable to
> > provide a source
> > > code view which is simultaneously capable of integrating with said
> > > debugger to provide for stepping through code and setting
> > breakpoints,
> > > and integrating with the output of said build system to
> > display source
> > > code interleaved with corresponding assembler code created
> > by said build
> > > system.
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________
> > >
> > > Chris Recoskie
> > > Software Designer
> > > Texas Instruments, Toronto
> > > http://eclipse.org/cdt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
> > > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:51 AM
> > > > To: Device Debugging developer discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
> > > >
> > > > If this is true, it's extremely surprising. Interleaved
> > > > source/disassemble is a staple in many debuggers. How a
> > company would
> > > > go about successfully patenting the implementation of
> > such a feature
> > > > in an open source product is puzzling, to say the least.
> > Copyrighting
> > > > an implementation is one thing; patenting the idea is
> > another story.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > At 10:28 AM 5/10/2006, Recoskie, Chris wrote:
> > > > >A caveat:
> > > > >
> > > > >I have heard that TI holds a patent on showing interleaved
> > > > >source/disassembly in the editor window (but not in
> > other windows, so
> > > > >the current Disassembly View does not infringe this patent as I
> > > > >understand it). I don't think it would be any sort of
> > problem to get
> > > > >this patent licensed royalty-free to Eclipse for such a
> > feature, but
> > > it
> > > > >is an IP issue that will have to go through due
> > diligence for sure.
> > > > >
> > > > >Disclaimer: I am not a patent lawyer and I have no
> authority to
> > > license
> > > > >the aforementioned patent, if it exists, on behalf of TI.
> > > > >
> > > > >___________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >Chris Recoskie
> > > > >Software Designer
> > > > >Texas Instruments, Toronto
> > > > >http://eclipse.org/cdt
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-
> > > > > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:19 AM
> > > > > > To: Device Debugging developer discussions;
> > > dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ewa,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are the BV bug numbers? They're not Bugzilla
> reports from
> > > what I
> > > > >can
> > > > > > tell.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I entered a bugzilla report for "Jump to Line" a while back
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=118147
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are also very interested in mixed
> disassembler/source mode
> > > > > > debugging. It seems this would be best implemented if
> > indeed all
> > > > > > three modes are provided in the editor. Your
> > suggested approach
> > > seems
> > > > > > feasible to me; the debugger could generate files on
> > the fly. The
> > > > > > trick would be to make that approach look natural to
> > the user, so
> > > > > > he's not aware that he's looking at a temporary file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 08:46 PM 5/9/2006, Ewa Matejska wrote:
> > > > > > >Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm soliciting ideas for enhancements to the Editor
> > to improve
> > > the
> > > > > > >embedded development experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Possible ideas are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >1. Add the "Jump to Line" option the editor margin menu.
> > > BV118147.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >2. Merge the Disassembly view into the Editor.
> This could be
> > > > > > >achieved in having a special read-only debug file
> > for each debug
> > > > > > >session whose state would toggle between source,
> > disassembly and
> > > > > > >mixed in some way. Related bug is BV39644.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >These ideas will be captured at:
> > > > > > >http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/DSDP/DD/Editor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Chris Recoskie, as the lead of the Disassembly View,
> > what do you
> > > > > > >think of idea#2?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thank You,
> > > > > > >Ewa.
> > > > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >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
> > > > >_______________________________________________
> > > > >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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
