[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View Requirement
|
>Another requirement that I want to bring up is that the solution should
not
be tied to CDT or CDI interface. The solution should also be generic
enough that the disassembly component can be reused by people whose
products are not built on top of CDT.
I agree. At the same time, I think we will need some way of expressing via
Platform Debug interfaces that the back-end is capable of disassembling
memory. Not all back-ends will be capable of this though, and there are
definitely use cases out there for disassembling binaries etc. without
having any debugger running at all, so a lot of times there won't even be a
back-end to query, you will need something more self contained for these
cases.
I think it makes sense to have a generic extension point for providing
disassemblers, and that it is up to the implementation of the disassembler
to go to the back end if it so chooses and if there is one available. This
way we can support all the use cases without having to worry about any
particular implementation.
As a part of this I believe it is necessary to figure out the scheme
whereby we are going to decide which disassembler is the right one to use.
It is highly likely that many disassemblers are going to coexist in the
same Eclipse runtime, and we need a way to specify when we declare the
extension for a particular disassembler exactly what types of things it can
disassemble.
===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
IBM Toronto
http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
Samantha
Chan/Toronto/IBM@
IBMCA To
Sent by: Device Debugging developer
dsdp-dd-dev-bounc discussions
es@xxxxxxxxxxx <dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
30/05/2006 06:12 Subject
PM RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View
Requirement
Please respond to
Device Debugging
developer
discussions
<dsdp-dd-dev@ecli
pse.org>
Hi Patrick -
It was in one of the discussions:
John: > Another option for the sort of thing you're talking about is to
introduce a feature in the binary parser and perhaps expose that via the
modules view.
Mikhail >Glad to hear it, I have been thinking on this feature for a long
time.
And I think it makes sense to show it anywhere a debug implementer decides
that it make sense. i.e. the solution needs to be generic enough that it's
not tied to any view or editor.
Another requirement that I want to bring up is that the solution should not
be tied to CDT or CDI interface. The solution should also be generic
enough that the disassembly component can be reused by people whose
products are not built on top of CDT.
Re: Displaying disassembly in Memory View
Although CDT has not considered replacing its disassembly view with the
Memory View. I still think it's a requirement to allow showing disassembly
in the Memory View. There could be use case where user is working with
memory and is wondering what kind of disassembly instructions or source are
being generated.
Thanks...
Samantha
"Chuong, Patrick"
<pchuong@xxxxxx>
Sent by: To
dsdp-dd-dev-bounc "Device Debugging developer
es@xxxxxxxxxxx discussions"
<dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
05/30/2006 05:59
PM Subject
RE: [dsdp-dd-dev] Disassembly View
Requirement
Please respond to
Device Debugging
developer
discussions
<dsdp-dd-dev@ecli
pse.org>
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
_______________________________________________
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
