2011/9/5 Marcus Denker <[email protected]>: > > On Sep 5, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: >> >> By the way, I would find it cool to have an optional byteCode view >> parallel to source code view and see the execution of byte codes, and >> why not, a view of Context stack frames. >> Also, the debugger might step message by message (AST-based) rather >> than byteCode by byteCode, is this what you mean by wrong abstraction >> level ? >> > With the wrong abstraction level: Why do we care about stepping bytecodes > at all? Why not only have an AST interpreter based debugger? > > Marcus > >
OK, then I finally succeeded in decoding Marcus/Stef high level instructions into low level specifications. I translate here for those obscurantists speaking native gdb: you want step/jump instead of stepi/jumpi. But it would have been better to provide detailed explanations from the beginning for slow brained like me ;). Nonetheless, you still need to map execution machiney to source code because of initial program counter, and in case of AST-based stepping, the map must be bi-directional in order to execute multiple bytecodes sometimes required by a single instruction. Nicolas > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > > >
