I am wondering what difference it makes to the debugger (Intellij IDEA + Scala plug-in) when I debug Scala code and not Java code. To my understanding, a debugger is tightly coupled with the language i.e. a Java debugger can not handle Scala code but apparently the JVM is the center of attention here meaning as long as it is byte-code, any debugger would do. right ?
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The problem was to give an example of how a byte-code debugger may be limiting for Scala. Assume a break point is reached and I don't want to go to the next line but I want the debugger to evaluate an Scala expression in the context of the application (e.g. I like to call an operator method from a singleton object). The debugger is stuck because it can not understand Scala. I have to do the transformation myself and input the resulting Java to the debugger.
The problem is that only "breakpoint stuff" could be handled in byte-code level. What if you want to put an expression under watch? Debugger has to understand Scala to evaluate the watched expression,right? This time I'm sure I'm right. Vengeance is mine, Saith the Lord ;-)
Short answer your assumptions are wrong.
The reason is the debugger does not care what language your debugging. It stops at breakpoints which in turn include the line of a particular source file. Note that the source file is merely text for you to read - the debugger never scans the source files. If you change the spot where source files are to another directory with a text file in the right directory w/ the right filename as a breakpoint that has been set, the debugger will happily show it when the breakpoint happens. Everytime you set a breakpoint your ide is telling the debugger hey scan this class for any byte code on this line and stop when you hit it. This of course does not work if your ide is attempting to compile the same text file into a class file - however it will work if you create fake text files as source for a jar file and do the source file mapping thing.
If one thinks about it, writing a simple template and compiling it while support debugging is not that difficult. Simply use asm to create all the print statements and tell asm this print statement is from the template file on this line. After that you can add more clever stuff while keeping things debuggable.
Related
I am trying to test different obfuscators. Before obfuscating I used Reko decompiler. It seems that the exe is already obfuscated - please look at the screen shot. Can someone please explain - why all the methods and variables seems as if the exe is already obfuscated?
Symbol names are not compiled into executable machine code.
They can be preserved, but in this case they are saved in separate .pdb file. If you don't generate it during build, or don't make available to debugger/decompiler, it cannot figure out variables and function names (except for the imported/exported ones)
High level constructs, like for or while are implemented with jumps and conditional jumps, so it is not possible to figure out if a loop was implemented via for or goto or if a conditional was if statement or ternary operator.
Optimization hugely transforms code, throwing away unnecessary parts, making some operations at compile time, etc.
I have written a Fortran code for being compiled as a '*.DLL' file.
The program which reads that file is a Finite Elements Method software named Plaxis, I already achieved to generate the '*.DLL' file in Visual Studio and Plaxis recognizes my model but the model does not work fine.
I would like to evaluate all the variables involved in my code and the procedure that Plaxis is using to read them, but when I use commands like "write(*,*) 'variable'" Plaxis does not show me what I asked in the source code.
Probably you want to open a file and write to that for debug logging, because presumably Plaxis doesn't run with standard output connected to anything useful. Or maybe it would if you just ran Plaxis from a command line window?
It's not going to create a dialog box for you.
But anyway, another option would might be attach to Plaxis with a debugger, and set a breakpoint in a function in your DLL. Then you can single-step your code as called by Plaxis.
Or you can write your own test callers and write unit tests for your functions, making them easy to debug. This could work well if your function just gets an array + size as args.
If instead it passes some wrapped object that you need to call special functions to deal with, then maybe make another version of your function that does just take an array so you can call it from a simple test caller.
Does any program compiled with the -g command have its source code available for gbd to list even if the source code files are unavailable?? Also when you set the breakpoints at a line in a program with a complicated multi source file structure do you need the names of the source code files??
OP's 1st Question:
Does any program compiled with the -g command have its source code available for gbd to list even if the source code files are unavailable??
No. If there is no path to the sources, then you will not see the source.
OP's 2nd Question:
[...] when you set the breakpoints at a line in a program with a complicated multi source file structure do you need the names of the source code files??
Not always. There are a few ways of setting breakpoints. The only two I remember are breaking on a line or breaking on a function. If you wanted to break on the first line of a function, use
break functionname
If the function lives in a module
break __modulename_MOD_functionname
The modulename and functionname should be lowercase, no matter how you've declared them in the code. Note the two underscores before the module name. If you are not sure, use nm on the executable to find out what the symbol is.
If you have the source code available and you are using a graphical environment, try ddd. It stops me swearing and takes a lot of guesswork out of gdb. If the source is available, it will show up straight away.
I want to store brief snippets of code in the database (following a standard signature) and "inject" them at runtime. One way would be using eval(my_code). Is there some way to debug the injected code using breakpoints, etc? (I'm using Rubymine)
I'm aware I can just log to console, etc, but I'd prefer IDE-style debugging if possible.
Hm. Let's analyze your question. Firstly, it does not seem to have anything to do with databases: You simply store a code block in the source form somewhere. It can be a file, or a database. Secondly, you don't want IDE-style "debugging", but TDD-style. (But don't concentrate on that question now.)
What you need, is assertions about your code. That is, you need to describe what output should your code produce given some input examples. And then, you need to run that code and see whether its function matches the expectations. Furthermore, if you are not sure about the source of your snippets, run them in a sandbox (with $SAFE = 4). If your code fails the expectations, raise nice errors (TypeError, or even better, your custom made exception), and then you can eg. rescue those exceptions and eg. use some default code snippets...
... but maybe I'm not actually answering the same question that you are asking. If that's the case, then let me share one link to this sourcify gem, which let's you know the source, so that you can insert a breakpoint by saying eg. require 'rdebug' in the middle of code, or can even convert code to sexps. That's all I know.
I am using MSVC 6.0 to call a macro in the Win32API and I'm getting an access violation. I know that the pointers I'm passing to the macro contain valid addresses, though they're evidently not pointing to the correct data.
The macro accepts multiple pointers, and I'm not sure which pointer is erroneous, so I'd like to use MSVC's debugger to 'step into' the macro to see exactly where the problem is. When I've tried thus far, the debugger just throws the access violation error.
Is it possible to 'step into' a macro using MSVC 6.0's debugger? If not, is there anyway for me to check what the macro expands to, so I can get a better idea of what I'm not doing correctly?
If you really need to trace the macro code, the only way would be to find the definition of the macro, manually "instantiate" the macro code (substituting the parameters) in place where it is "called", and then trace it in the debugger as ordinary code.
Alternative variant would be to step through the disassembly, if your skill level is sufficient to back-associate the disassembled code with the original macro code.
You cannot step into the macro because at the point compiler does its job, the macro is already expanded. However, you can step through a macro - if you just do "step", you will actually step through all code inside the macro as if it was expanded, line by line. If you to "step into", you will step into every function call made from that macro. If the macro is small enough, and/or you know it very well, you can do a "blind step through" that way.
You can step into functions that are called from the macro but as far as I know can not really step through the macro lines themselves. And yes if you code compiles - you can find the macro definition (use MSVC function/class browser to find where it is defined, some header file probably)
I'd just step into the disassembly - usually, even if you're not an assembly expert, short runs of code (a few lines) the assembly map back to the C/C++ code pretty readily (especially in non-Release builds). Hopefully the macro isn't so hairy that that isn't the case here.
Remember that plenty of debugging occurs even without source code, so having the source and the disassembly together usually isn't too bad. And if it's something you haven't much experience with, it's great experience to get.