RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View Requirement

["Chuong, Patrick" <pchuong@xxxxxx>]

Samantha,

I am not so sure whether having disassembly to show in any other view
other than the editor and disassembly view is such a good idea. I don't
see any reason why a user will like to do that. Maybe I am missing some
of the previous discussions. As for adding disassembly view in the
editor, Mikhail has suggested that we created an extension point for the
editor, and I think this should be the way to go.

Yes true for optimized code, not all sources can be mapped to
disassembly text. So for source base, you will not be seeing any
disassembly text in the mixed mode if there is no associated
disassembly, and in the address base method, you will not see source if
an address can't be map to source.

As for how you decode the instruction from binary file or memory on the
target, I'll say it is up to the debugger to decide how to decode the
disassembly from a given address. The CDI interface should just be
asking the debugger to disassembly at a given address, and the debugger
should just return the disassembled text, by either reading memory or
from the binary file and than decode the opCode.

Regards,
Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Samantha Chan
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:30 PM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View Requirement

Hi -

Re:  R1 Generic Disassembly View
Are we having a separate disassembly view?  Or are we looking at
displaying
disassembly as a rendering in the Memory View?  Showing disassembly in
the
Memory View was one of CDT's requirements.

Re:  Portable disassembly component
One of the requirements is to make showing disassembly as a portable
component and it can be "plugged" into any view or editor or anywhere we
need it.  e.g. the Modules View

Re:  Optimized code:
I think there is another requirement for dealing with optimized code.
Kirt
Beitz from Freescale indicated that they have cases where there is no
1-to-1 mapping between instructions and source code either way.  They
need
to be able to show disassembly and source side-by-side, not interlacing.
They need to be able to highlight several non-contigous lines of
instructions per source line... or highlight several non-contiguous
lines
of source lines per instruction.

Re:  Input to disassembly
Does it make sense to add a requirement to allow this disassembly
component
to accept any input for creating the disassembly "view"?  e.g. We have
cases where it makes sense for the disassembly component to disassemble
memory from a memory block and show it as disassembly instructions.  In
other cases, we can have a binary file as input and display its content
as
disassembly.

Thanks...
Samantha



 

             "Ewa Matejska"

             <Ewa.Matejska@pal

             msource.com>
To 
             Sent by:                  "Device Debugging developer

             dsdp-dd-dev-bounc         discussions"

             es@xxxxxxxxxxx            <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 
cc 
 

             05/30/2006 04:52
Subject 
             PM                        RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly
View  
                                       Requirement

 

             Please respond to

             Device Debugging

                 developer

                discussions

             <dsdp-dd-dev@ecli

                 pse.org>

 

 





Hi,

The requirement of mixed mode/assembly/source toggle is also an Editor
Subgroup requirement.  We should coordinate and work together on this.
Some of the other requirements seem relevant to the Editor as well, such
as
the multiple breakpoint icons.

Thanks,
Ewa.

From: dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-dd-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuong, Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:23 PM
To: Device Debugging developer discussions
Subject: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View Requirement

Hi everyone,

I have updated the disassembly twiki website with the requirements that
I
have gather through multiple email threads in the archive. Any feedback
and
additional requirement is welcome. Additionally, I suggest that we keep
one
discussion thread for the disassembly view requirement. This can be
related
to the CDT disassembly view or Disassembly renderer in the Memory view.

Regards,
Patrick_______________________________________________
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