[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology subgroup
|
I didn't want to hijack this thread, but I have been
curious what everyone thought of the merits of the different approaches to
disassembly, (more or less broached by Mark below):
Which approach do you think is better:
1) putting source into disassembly
2) putting disassembly into source
We have tried both in incarnations of our debuggers.
In our code|lab (pre-Eclipse) debugger we put disassembly into source
code. This had a nice presentation, but made things very difficult when
you had an image that had pieces of files scattered all over memory and
"less than ideal" debug info. I got weary of this struggle and in our
current Eclipse based debugger (EDGE) we now have an editor with three
modes: normal, mixed, and pure disassembly. In the mixed
mode, it is linear address based disassembly that inserts the source code
into it as best as it can. (which means what you get depends on how
detailed the debug info is). It just syncs with the PC by
default. This has less issues when adjacent source lines are megabytes
away from each other, or the compiler unrolled a loop or something, but on the
flip side it does not resemble the users code always, (so people
complain)
Other thoughts on this? Perhaps we support both
methods?
regards,
Aaron
Indeed, but this new multi-page editor window should handle all
view modes: source, disassembly and mixed (interleaved). The debug perspective
would include this editor window but not the standard one. To the user, the
swap that happens when going back and forth from the debug perspective would
be mostly unnoticeable--at least on the surface.
John
At 11:08
PM 5/12/2006, Mark_Melvin@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I'd be tempted to look at this
the other way 'round. Why not make a separate "disassembly editor"
that shows interleaved source? It could be a disassembly editor like
the CDT has now, or it could be another page on a multi-page editor for the
executable file you are debugging.
Either way, it is basically a
folding/interleaving problem in a platform text editor - with a little
context problem thrown in for good measure.
;o)
Mark.
----------------------------------------------------------
-----dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----
- To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Device Debugging developer discussions"
<dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Ewa Matejska" <Ewa.Matejska@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sent by: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 05/12/2006 06:12PM
- Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- Hi,
- Yes...you're definitely right that context switching will be a
challenge
- here.
- Ewa.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
- On Behalf Of Mikhail Khodjaiants
- Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 2:57 PM
- To: CDT General developers list.
- Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- Ewa,
- This is more a presentation problem. A source line may have different
- disassemblies on different platforms.
- Suppose you have a source file opened in the editor window and you are
- running two debug sessions on two different targets simultaneously.
Both
- sessions share the same source file.
- If you want to display disassembly in the same editor window, you
have
- to
- listen to debug context and switch between different disassemblies
when
- the
- debug context changes.
- Mikhail
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: "Ewa Matejska" <Ewa.Matejska@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
"Device
- Debugging
- developer discussions" <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:32 PM
- Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- Mikhail,
- I think that the idea was to genearate a read-only file for each
debug
- session. This file would be created using the object file and
found
- source files at the beginning of the debug session and it would be
- destroyed at the end. The original source file would not actually
be
- modified.
- Thanks,
- Ewa.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
- On Behalf Of Mikhail Khodjaiants
- Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:35 PM
- To: CDT General developers list.
- Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- There is at least one problem in Eclipse with having disassembly
- embedded in
- the editor. If you run two debug sessions using the same source file
on
- different platforms, the disassembly is different for each platform.
So
- your
- editor has to react to context changes and insert the right
disassembly.
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: "Ken Ryall" <ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Device Debugging developer discussions"
<dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
- "CDT
- General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:16 PM
- Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- > My feedback on the editor experience while debugging:
- >
- > The editor in our legacy tools lets you switch between
source,
- > disassembly,
- > and mixed in the same view. People really like this and some
- developers
- > would rapidly toggle between these as they stepped through
code.
- >
- > We also added the same functionality to our memory view so you
could
- pick
- > any address and view disassembly, mixed, or source. Of course
the
- latter
- > two
- > were only available if the address happened to have source
- correspondence.
- > In both the editor and memory views the underlying implementation
was
- the
- > same.
- >
- > If you wanted to edit the source while debugging the source file
would
- be
- > cloned. A static snapshot would be cached for use by the debugger
and
- the
- > original edited normally. I've wondered if the "local
history"
- mechanism
- > could be leveraged for this but have never looked into it. Of
course
- the
- > next time you rebuild the executable the cached version of the
file is
- > tossed and the current one used again.
- >
- > Our developers are used to this functionality and we will likely
need
- > something similar in our new tools as well.
- >
- > Thanks - Ken
- >
- >> From: ext Ewa Matejska
<Ewa.Matejska@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- >> Reply-To: Device Debugging developer discussions
- >> <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:42:55 -0700
- >> To: "CDT General developers list."
<cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Device
- >> Debugging
- >> developer discussions <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- >> Conversation: [cdt-dev] RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Editor technology
subgroup
- >> 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.
- >
- > _______________________________________________
- > 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
- _______________________________________________
- dsdp-dd-dev mailing list
- dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
- https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-dd-dev
AMI Semiconductor - "Silicon Solutions for the Real
World"
NOTICE:
This electronic message contains information that may be confidential or
privileged. The information is intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information is prohibited. If you received this electronic
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you
received.