From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,624d2df910935ed3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@somewhere.ia.us (Robert S. White) Subject: Re: comp.arch.embedded Date: 1997/12/19 Message-ID: <67ch20$dd2$2@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 308446523 References: <34991C2D.127F@sh.bel.alcatel.be> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: designing/implementing avionics during the day Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-12-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34991C2D.127F@sh.bel.alcatel.be>, jdla@sh.bel.alcatel.be says... >How does one debug code which is running on a target board processor >using a debugger running on a PC or workstation (so running on >a different processor). >How is synchronized on breakpoints, how is single stepped ... >Does the debugger have knowledge about the target processor >instructions ? Simple, one installs a "microprocessor emulator" in a PC or a Unix workstation. Then you run a debugger (hexidecimal, symbolic, or even source level) that works with the emulator (which is plugged into the target hardware, in place of the normal target processor, or it disables the target processor and runs the rest of the hardware instead). Often this requires a "bond-out" chip from the microprocessor vendor. >Are there standardizations needed and/or common ? Can each debugger >be used for each processor ? If not, by what it is determined ? A lot of variables here. In general not much is standardized now. You have to buy unique hardware for each type of target processor. _____________________________________________________________________ Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer e-mail reply to reverse of: ia us lib cedar-rapids crpl shift2 whiter