Normally if you set a gdb breakpoint and the the program hits that point, gdb stops execution entirely and lets the user examine and poke around before continuing.
I want the option to be notified of the breakpoint traversal, but not halt execution.
I know I could simply go to the code and add a print statement, but this is annoying especially debugging libraries outside my code which I am not building myself.
Again, I'm already using GDB and want to use 'breakpoints' but just get some sort of notification of when and how many times a line is traversed without halting the whole program's execution. Is this possible?
I want the option to be notified of the breakpoint traversal, but not halt execution.
(gdb) break foo.c:123
(gdb) commands $bpnum
continue
end
This attaches a command to the breakpoint. GDB will print that a breakpoint is hit, then run the attached command, which will continue execution.
You could also print some variables before continuing, or even continue only if some condition is true, and stop otherwise. E.g. "continue if x > 100, but stop if it's not".
I've tried to set breakpoint on every function that makes any sense but program exit before reaching any of those. Is there a way to make program run in step-by-step mode from the start so I can see what's going on?
I'm trying to debug /usr/bin/id if it's important (we have custom plugin for it and it's misbehaved)
P.S. Start command doesn't work for me here(it should be a comment, but I don't have enough rep for it)
Get the program entry point address and insert a breakpoint at that address.
One way to do this is to do info files which gives you for example "Entry point: 0x4045a4". Then do "break *0x4045a4". After run-ning program, it will immediately stop.
From here on you can use single stepping instructions (like step or stepi) to proceed.
You did not tell what system you are trying to debug. If code is in read-only memory you may need to use hardware breakpoints (hbreak) if they are supported by that system.
Use start command
The ‘start’ command does the equivalent of setting a temporary breakpoint at the beginning of the main procedure and then invoking the ‘run’ command.
e.g.
a program with debug info main, and usage like this: main arg1 arg2
gdb main
(gdb) start arg1 arg2
Use starti. Unlike start this stops at the actual first instruction, not at main().
You can type record full right after running the program. This will record all instructions and make them possible for replaying/going back.
For main function, you'd need to type this before reaching the breakpoint so you can set an earlier one by break _start -> _start is a function always called before the standard main function. (apparently applies only to the gcc compiler or similar)
Then continue to main breakpoint and do reverse-stepi to go exactly one instruction back
For more info about recording look here: link
(I'm coding a debugger. But my doubt is also from the point of view of a debugger user)
Many debuggers in many languages (GDB, Eclipse) implement a STEP_OVER command that permits to execute one statement at a time; the difference with STEP_INTO is that it does not perform the stepping down in stack (i.e., called functions), which is often a good thing.
10 : y = f1(x);
11 : z = y + 1;
Now, suppose I step over line 10 above, but a breakpoint is hit inside function f1 (perhaps several levels deep in the call stack). It's not clear what should happen when I resume: should the debugger pause at line 11 (effectively "completing the step over" command)? Or should it forget about it? I believe most (all?) debuggers do the later. Is that the standard/expected behaviour? I myself have found this a little frustrating. Is there a way (in some debugger) to resume execution from the inside breakpoint to the outside stepped-over statement? Or is there some way to do a step-over-ignoring breakpoints?
WinDbg does the latter, and I believe this is standard behavior. If you are worried about a different breakpoint occurring during a step-over command, you could always manually set a breakpoint on line 11 and continue running until line 11 is hit. Alternatively, you could temporarily disable the other breakpoints, but note that the debugger still may break for other reasons as well (such as raising an exception), depending on its configuration.
This question comes from the recent question "Correct way to cap Mathematica memory use?"
I wonder, is it possible to programmatically restart MathKernel keeping the current FrontEnd process connected to new MathKernel process and evaluating some code in new MathKernel session? I mean a "transparent" restart which allows a user to continue working with the FrontEnd while having new fresh MathKernel process with some code from the previous kernel evaluated/evaluating in it?
The motivation for the question is to have a way to automatize restarting of MathKernel when it takes too much memory without breaking the computation. In other words, the computation should be automatically continued in new MathKernel process without interaction with the user (but keeping the ability for user to interact with the Mathematica as it was originally). The details on what code should be evaluated in new kernel are of course specific for each computational task. I am looking for a general solution how to automatically continue the computation.
From a comment by Arnoud Buzing yesterday, on Stack Exchange Mathematica chat, quoting entirely:
In a notebook, if you have multiple cells you can put Quit in a cell by itself and set this option:
SetOptions[$FrontEnd, "ClearEvaluationQueueOnKernelQuit" -> False]
Then if you have a cell above it and below it and select all three and evaluate, the kernel will Quit but the frontend evaluation queue will continue (and restart the kernel for the last cell).
-- Arnoud Buzing
The following approach runs one kernel to open a front-end with its own kernel, which is then closed and reopened, renewing the second kernel.
This file is the MathKernel input, C:\Temp\test4.m
Needs["JLink`"];
$FrontEndLaunchCommand="Mathematica.exe";
UseFrontEnd[
nb = NotebookOpen["C:\\Temp\\run.nb"];
SelectionMove[nb, Next, Cell];
SelectionEvaluate[nb];
];
Pause[8];
CloseFrontEnd[];
Pause[1];
UseFrontEnd[
nb = NotebookOpen["C:\\Temp\\run.nb"];
Do[SelectionMove[nb, Next, Cell],{12}];
SelectionEvaluate[nb];
];
Pause[8];
CloseFrontEnd[];
Print["Completed"]
The demo notebook, C:\Temp\run.nb contains two cells:
x1 = 0;
Module[{},
While[x1 < 1000000,
If[Mod[x1, 100000] == 0, Print["x1=" <> ToString[x1]]]; x1++];
NotebookSave[EvaluationNotebook[]];
NotebookClose[EvaluationNotebook[]]]
Print[x1]
x1 = 0;
Module[{},
While[x1 < 1000000,
If[Mod[x1, 100000] == 0, Print["x1=" <> ToString[x1]]]; x1++];
NotebookSave[EvaluationNotebook[]];
NotebookClose[EvaluationNotebook[]]]
The initial kernel opens a front-end and runs the first cell, then it quits the front-end, reopens it and runs the second cell.
The whole thing can be run either by pasting (in one go) the MathKernel input into a kernel session, or it can be run from a batch file, e.g. C:\Temp\RunTest2.bat
#echo off
setlocal
PATH = C:\Program Files\Wolfram Research\Mathematica\8.0\;%PATH%
echo Launching MathKernel %TIME%
start MathKernel -noprompt -initfile "C:\Temp\test4.m"
ping localhost -n 30 > nul
echo Terminating MathKernel %TIME%
taskkill /F /FI "IMAGENAME eq MathKernel.exe" > nul
endlocal
It's a little elaborate to set up, and in its current form it depends on knowing how long to wait before closing and restarting the second kernel.
Perhaps the parallel computation machinery could be used for this? Here is a crude set-up that illustrates the idea:
Needs["SubKernels`LocalKernels`"]
doSomeWork[input_] := {$KernelID, Length[input], RandomReal[]}
getTheJobDone[] :=
Module[{subkernel, initsub, resultSoFar = {}}
, initsub[] :=
( subkernel = LaunchKernels[LocalMachine[1]]
; DistributeDefinitions["Global`"]
)
; initsub[]
; While[Length[resultSoFar] < 1000
, DistributeDefinitions[resultSoFar]
; Quiet[ParallelEvaluate[doSomeWork[resultSoFar], subkernel]] /.
{ $Failed :> (Print#"Ouch!"; initsub[])
, r_ :> AppendTo[resultSoFar, r]
}
]
; CloseKernels[subkernel]
; resultSoFar
]
This is an over-elaborate setup to generate a list of 1,000 triples of numbers. getTheJobDone runs a loop that continues until the result list contains the desired number of elements. Each iteration of the loop is evaluated in a subkernel. If the subkernel evaluation fails, the subkernel is relaunched. Otherwise, its return value is added to the result list.
To try this out, evaluate:
getTheJobDone[]
To demonstrate the recovery mechanism, open the Parallel Kernel Status window and kill the subkernel from time-to-time. getTheJobDone will feel the pain and print Ouch! whenever the subkernel dies. However, the overall job continues and the final result is returned.
The error-handling here is very crude and would likely need to be bolstered in a real application. Also, I have not investigated whether really serious error conditions in the subkernels (like running out of memory) would have an adverse effect on the main kernel. If so, then perhaps subkernels could kill themselves if MemoryInUse[] exceeded a predetermined threshold.
Update - Isolating the Main Kernel From Subkernel Crashes
While playing around with this framework, I discovered that any use of shared variables between the main kernel and subkernel rendered Mathematica unstable should the subkernel crash. This includes the use of DistributeDefinitions[resultSoFar] as shown above, and also explicit shared variables using SetSharedVariable.
To work around this problem, I transmitted the resultSoFar through a file. This eliminated the synchronization between the two kernels with the net result that the main kernel remained blissfully unaware of a subkernel crash. It also had the nice side-effect of retaining the intermediate results in the event of a main kernel crash as well. Of course, it also makes the subkernel calls quite a bit slower. But that might not be a problem if each call to the subkernel performs a significant amount of work.
Here are the revised definitions:
Needs["SubKernels`LocalKernels`"]
doSomeWork[] := {$KernelID, Length[Get[$resultFile]], RandomReal[]}
$resultFile = "/some/place/results.dat";
getTheJobDone[] :=
Module[{subkernel, initsub, resultSoFar = {}}
, initsub[] :=
( subkernel = LaunchKernels[LocalMachine[1]]
; DistributeDefinitions["Global`"]
)
; initsub[]
; While[Length[resultSoFar] < 1000
, Put[resultSoFar, $resultFile]
; Quiet[ParallelEvaluate[doSomeWork[], subkernel]] /.
{ $Failed :> (Print#"Ouch!"; CloseKernels[subkernel]; initsub[])
, r_ :> AppendTo[resultSoFar, r]
}
]
; CloseKernels[subkernel]
; resultSoFar
]
I have a similar requirement when I run a CUDAFunction for a long loop and CUDALink ran out of memory (similar here: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/31412/cudalink-ran-out-of-available-memory). There's no improvement on the memory leak even with the latest Mathematica 10.4 version. I figure out a workaround here and hope that you may find it's useful. The idea is that you use a bash script to call a Mathematica program (run in batch mode) multiple times with passing parameters from the bash script. Here is the detail instruction and demo (This is for Window OS):
To use bash-script in Win_OS you need to install cygwin (https://cygwin.com/install.html).
Convert your mathematica notebook to package (.m) to be able to use in script mode. If you save your notebook using "Save as.." all the command will be converted to comments (this was noted by Wolfram Research), so it's better that you create a package (File->New-Package), then copy and paste your commands to that.
Write the bash script using Vi editor (instead of Notepad or gedit for window) to avoid the problem of "\r" (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/programming-9/shell-scripts-in-windows-cygwin-607659/).
Here is a demo of the test.m file
str=$CommandLine;
len=Length[str];
Do[
If[str[[i]]=="-start",
start=ToExpression[str[[i+1]]];
Pause[start];
Print["Done in ",start," second"];
];
,{i,2,len-1}];
This mathematica code read the parameter from a commandline and use it for calculation.
Here is the bash script (script.sh) to run test.m many times with different parameters.
#c:\cygwin64\bin\bash
for ((i=2;i<10;i+=2))
do
math -script test.m -start $i
done
In the cygwin terminal type "chmod a+x script.sh" to enable the script then you can run it by typing "./script.sh".
You can programmatically terminate the kernel using Exit[]. The front end (notebook) will automatically start a new kernel when you next try to evaluate an expression.
Preserving "some code from the previous kernel" is going to be more difficult. You have to decide what you want to preserve. If you think you want to preserve everything, then there's no point in restarting the kernel. If you know what definitions you want to save, you can use DumpSave to write them to a file before terminating the kernel, and then use << to load that file into the new kernel.
On the other hand, if you know what definitions are taking up too much memory, you can use Unset, Clear, ClearAll, or Remove to remove those definitions. You can also set $HistoryLength to something smaller than Infinity (the default) if that's where your memory is going.
Sounds like a job for CleanSlate.
<< Utilities`CleanSlate`;
CleanSlate[]
From: http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/TechNotes/4718/
"CleanSlate, tries to do everything possible to return the kernel to the state it was in when the CleanSlate.m package was initially loaded."
I have two programs, X is the normal program with which the user interacts, and program Y which cleans up the resources acquired by program Y. There can be multiple instances of X but only one of Y (I already solved that part with named mutexes). Now, since Y is a cleanup program, it should be blocked until the last instance of X disappear.
I tried using a semaphore but I couldn't figure it out. Can somebody help me?
A semaphore is one valid way of doing this, but not necessarily the best. Whenever program X starts, call ReleaseSemaphore. Whenever a process terminates, call WaitForSingleObject with a timeout of zero on the semaphore handle (be sure to also include this in the exception handler, in case the program crashes).
Process Y can regularly poll WaitForSingleObject with a zero (or a few milliseconds) timeout then. If the return value is WAIT_OBJECT_0, it must release the semaphore again immediately (otherwise it will block the last X process trying to exit!). If the return value is WAIT_TIMEOUT, there are not X processes any more.
The best solution would of course be to launch all X processes from Y. In that case, Y could just WaitForMultipleObjects on the process handles that it gets from CreateProcess with no extra "ifs and whens". This will "just work", always. It is more efficient, too.
Which leads to the second best solution... getting handles to the running processes with OpenProcess and WaitForMultipleObjects on those. The problem is where to get the process IDs from. A shared memory area might do, a pipe might do, or CreateToolhelp32Snapshot might give you that info.
Another way would be to use a named mutex object. All processes X call CreateMutex. If the mutex already exists, no harm is done (GetLastError will return ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS, but so what). If the process terminates or crashes, all open handles are closed, and thus the mutex reference count is decremented.
The Y process calls OpenMutex. This either succeeds or fails. If it succeeds, it closes the handle again, sleeps, and tries again. If it fails, no single X process is running.
Yet another way (though it might possibly have race issues) would be creating a named shared memory segment and calling InterlockedIncrement and InterlockedDecrement at process X start and exit. Process Y knows that no X processes are running if either the shared memory object cannot be opened or the counter is zero.