skip to main content
10.1145/2892664.2892679acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodularityConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Multi-level debugging for interpreter developers

Published:14 March 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Conventional debuggers require programmers to work on multiple levels of abstraction at once when inspecting call stacks or data. This demands considerable cognitive overhead and deep system knowledge of all implementation technologies involved. When developing an interpreter, programmers often create a dedicated debugger to have a higher-level perspective on the client-language; the resulting use of multiple debuggers at once leads to mental context switches and needs an elaborated method. We present an integrated debugging tool in which interpreter developers define and select the levels of abstraction on which they focus. Our debugger provides them with an abstraction-specialized view. We consider both host-language and guest-language levels, since either may be levels of interest in a debugging session. We show how this separation into host-language levels can ease the debugging of applications through filtering call stacks and specializing call stack representation on levels.

References

  1. Charles, P. et al. 2009. Accelerating the creation of customized, language-Specific IDEs in Eclipse. ACM Sigplan Notices. 44, 10 (2009), 191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Chis, A. et al. 2015. Practical domain-specific debuggers using the Moldable Debugger framework. Computer Languages, Systems and Structures. 44, (Dec. 2015), 89-113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chis, A. et al. 2015. The moldable inspector. 2015 ACM - Onward! 2015 (New York, New York, USA, Oct. 2015), 44-60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Erdweg, S. et al. 2012. Language Composition Untangled. LDTA '12. (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Freudenberg, B. et al. 2014. SqueakJS A Modern and Practical Smalltalk that Runs in Any Browser. DLS '14. (2014), 57-66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pavletic, D. et al. 2014. Extensible Debuggers for Extensible Languages. Softwaretechnik-Trends. 33, 2 (2014), 51-52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Pavletic, D. and Raza, S.A. 2015. Multi-Level Debugging for Extensible Languages. Workshop Software-Reengineering und - Evolution. 17 (2015), 21-23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Renggli, L. et al. 2010. Embedding Languages Without Breaking Tools. ECOOP. (2010), 380-404. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wu, H. et al. 2004. Debugging Domain-Specific Languages In Eclipse. Eclipse Technology Exchange Poster. (2004), 1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Multi-level debugging for interpreter developers

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        MODULARITY Companion 2016: Companion Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Modularity
        March 2016
        217 pages
        ISBN:9781450340335
        DOI:10.1145/2892664

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 March 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate41of139submissions,29%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader