Modelling a Debugger for an Imperative Voice Control Language

  • Andreas Blunk
  • Joachim Fischer
  • Daniel A. Sadilek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5719)


Creating debuggers for languages has always been a hard task. The main reason is that languages differ a lot, especially in the way programs are executed on underlying platforms. The emergence of metamodel-based technologies for defining languages simplified the creation of various language tools, e.g., creating editors from notation descriptions became common practice. Another, relatively recent, example is the metamodel-based description of execution semantics from which an interpreter can be derived. Such a semantics allows one to apply a model-based approach also to debugger development. In this paper, we demonstrate how a debugger can be modelled for an imperative voice control language. We show models of the debugging context, breakpoints, and stepping of voice control programs. These models are processed by a generic debugger.


Operational Semantic Object Constraint Language Object Management Group Program Location Eclipse Modeling Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Scheidgen, M.: Adopting Meta-modelling for ITU-T Languages: Language Tool Prototypes as a by-Product of Language Specications. In: Workshop on ITU System Design Languages (2008),
  2. 2.
    Rosenberg, J.: How Debuggers Work - Algorithms, Data Structures, and Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF),
  5. 5.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Vers. 2.0,
  6. 6.
    Sadilek, D., Wachsmuth, G.: EProvide: Prototyping Visual Interpreters and Debuggers for Domain-Specific Modelling Languages. In: Schieferdecker, I., Hartman, A. (eds.) ECMDA-FA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5095, pp. 63–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Textual Editing Framework (TEF),
  8. 8.
    Plotkin, G.: A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report (DAIMI FN-19), University of Aarhus (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/ Transformation Specification,
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Object Constraint Language (OCL) Version 2.0,
  11. 11.
    Damus, C.W.: Implementing Model Integrity in EMF with MDT OCL,
  12. 12.
    Wu, H., Gray, J., Mernik, M.: Grammar-Driven Generation of Domain-Specific Language Debuggers. Softw. Pract. Exper. 38(10), 1073–1103 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramsey, N.: A Retargetable Debugger. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hanson, D., Raghavachari, M.: A Machine-Independent Debugger. Softw. Pract. Exper. 26(11), 1277–1299 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blunk, A.: MODEF – Ein generisches Debugging-Framework für domänenspezifische Sprachen mit metamodellbasierter Sprachdefinition auf der Basis von Eclipse, EMF und EProvide. Diploma Thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Blunk
    • 1
  • Joachim Fischer
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Sadilek
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations