Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Read/WriteMemory access width parameter addition #348

Open
arronhartley-arm opened this issue Nov 7, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Read/WriteMemory access width parameter addition #348

arronhartley-arm opened this issue Nov 7, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels
under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach

Comments

@arronhartley-arm
Copy link

Use-case: As an author of embedded tooling, I would like to be able to set granular access width of memory operations, in incrementing bits. This is because many embedded devices have memory areas that can only be accessed using a specific sized memory access operation. The debug adapter can sometimes determine the correct access width however without full context, this is not always possible.

Recommend the following adding to both ReadMemory and WriteMemory:

    /**
     * Specifies the memory access width in bits. Valid values: 8, 16, 32, 64.
     * If not specified, the debugger will determine an appropriate access width.
     */
    width?: number;
@connor4312
Copy link
Member

I am not very familiar with embedded debugging needs: what would this look like in the client UI? Does a user choose the access width?

@connor4312 connor4312 added the under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach label Nov 7, 2022
@arronhartley-arm
Copy link
Author

arronhartley-arm commented Nov 8, 2022

Hi Connon. Good question and I'm struggling to find examples of debuggers which do expose this to users in the GUI. Typically we facilitate this as part of user-driven commands however for memory views in a GUI perhaps the same does not hold true and adapters should rely on what context they do have to drive the memory access. Let me think on this a little more and come back to you. It could be that this request doesn't fit within the scope of DAP.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
under-discussion Issue is under discussion for relevance, priority, approach
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants