RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Memory View Technology Subgroup Discussion

["Williams, Ted" <ted.williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Samantha> "What I meant was that if the editor that we use implements
the IMemoryRenderingContainer and IMemoryRenderingSite interfaces, an
editor can potentially display a memory rendering.  In this case, the
disassembly rendering can be shown in the editor.  We can resuse the
code in a disassembly rendering and do not have to come up with two
different solutions for showing disasembly in the Memory View and in an
editor."

When I think of mixed mode, two distinctly different use cases come to
mind: source based and address based. Source based (mixed mode) is
useful when I'm debugging source. I might instruction step in this mode,
but mainly, I enable it because I'm curious which instructions were
generated by the compiler. I think the editor provides the better
experience for this mode. I often edit while I'm stepping, if only to
add comments. When I do edit code, completion and syntax highlighting
are essential -- I don't see any advantage to editing source outside of
the editor. The second mode, address based, is useful when my focus is
instruction stepping. No matter how many times I step, I never leave the
frame. Additionally, this mode allows me to see instructions beyond a
single source file. The memory view is a close fit, but its real estate
is poor. I want to step disassembly in the editor region, where there
will be sufficient width for the interspersed source lines. 

Samantha, can you elaborate on your proposal (above)? A disassembly
editor could implement IMemoryRenderingContainer and share the memory
view rendering. This sounds useful for the address based mode. But, how
would the rendering enhance the source based mode? What would the
connection be between the source editor and the memory rendering?

ted