From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Thu Dec 14 11:47:57 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id LAA33750;
	Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:47:57 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (dhcp242.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.242])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA33743
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:47:54 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBE2uku01977;
	Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:56:48 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Message-Id: <200012140256.eBE2uku01977@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: Takanori Watanabe <takawata@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp>
cc: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Dec 2000 09:27:54 +0900."
             <200012100027.JAA85877@shidahara1.planet.sci.kobe-u.ac.jp> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:56:46 -0800
From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 960
Subject: [acpi-jp 960] Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/acpica acpi.c acpi_button.c acpi_ec.c acpi_isa.c acpi_lid.c acpi_pcib.c acpi_processor.c acpi_resource.c acpi_thermal.c acpi_timer.c acpiio.h acpivar.h 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> In message <200012082042.eB8KgKF01901@mass.osd.bsdi.com>, Mike Smith $B$5$s$$$o$/(B
> :
> >> I don't think this "infrastructure" is useful. As far as I experienced,
> >> the message is too noisy or too few infomation.
> >
> >I've been very slowly coming around to like it.  It's important to pick 
> >your debugging options carefully, and to be prepared to wade through 
> >thousands of lines of output (a serial console is mandatory).
> 
> When I debug it I embedded  Debugger(); then set breakpoint from it.
> The infomation I wanted to is the position of bytecode where the exectuion 
> is failed,not of sourcecode position, because in many cases, we can use
> trace command from Debugger. I could not found a way to show the infomation
> without many garbage.

Understood.  But that's not what I've been trying to do with my 
debugging, where code flow is of real interest.  That's why these are 
optional.  8)  

BTW, I'd love an interface where I could specify AML breakpoints by 
method name...

> The more important thing is that the infrastructure is not exported from 
> ACPICA.And it affect code style.We should not include "acpi.h" but 
> "acpixf.h" and "acpiosxf.h".I think dev/acpica/* is *NOT* a part of ACPICA.

No, it's not really a part of ACPI CA, but that doesn't mean that we 
can't integrate with the ACPI CA debugging infrastructure.  In some cases 
(especially code that interacts closely with ACPI CA) this can be very 
helpful.  In other cases, it doesn't make a lot of difference.

-- 
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also.  But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view.  [Dr. Fritz Todt]
           V I C T O R Y   N O T   V E N G E A N C E


