Why can't the compiler just compile my code as I type it?
From the user's point of view, it could work as smoothly as syntax colouring does today. If you stop typing for long enough (maybe a couple of seconds) the compilation (not linking) would finish, and code errors would be identified using something like syntax colouring.
It's not like my 3GHz quad core monster computer was really busy doing something else. Why not let it compile all the time?
That's exactly what the VB.NET code editor in Visual Studio does.
The advantage is much more accurate IntelliSense than C#. The disadvantage is that it wastes truly vast amounts of processor time and memory. :-(
It can. Or, to be more useful, the answer to this question depends on
What language
What degree of optimization you require
How annoyed you will be if you temporarily type something dumb, and the compiler compiles and injects the result into the binary your are debugging before you can fix it.
Some really strong optimizations would be very messy to mess with on the fly. On the other hand, a basic compilation, if there's no need to worry about assigning offsets for X86 instructions? Sure.
Some IDEs do compile (or at least check syntax and some semantics) code as it is typed. For example, I think Eclipse does it. I think Visual Basic 6 (and maybe earlier versions) did this.
Note sure what IDE you're using, but that's how VB.NET works.
I'm not well-versed in compilers or the methods by which code is converted to IL and machine language, etc. But even so I can see how altering my program by one flow control statement can completely invalidate the work a compiler has done up to that point. By adding or changing a single line of code, entire portions of a program may become obsolete, unused, or in some other way require re-evaluation.
I think I'd rather save those CPU cycles for distributed.net or SETI # Home instead of constantly recompiling my code as I alter it.
That totally depend on the language.
Languages that have context-independent syntaxes "could" pre-compile expressions once typed. However, compilation of such languages project is always fast, so why use the cpu when you can batch quickly the work when the code is ready?
Other languages, like infamously C++, are context-dependent. In most cases, the compiler can't understand an expression without having already read the whole code before the expression. It's really really hard to parse and that's why we have error checking before compilation only now (in VS2010 and other recent ide). In this case it looks like impossible to implement the feature you're asking for.
That said, I'm not a specialist at all. That's all I know about it.
Even interpreted languages like PHP have support for this in the Komodo editor. I'm sure there's many more editors out there that support this for almost any language.
Related
I need to create a simple module/executable that can print checks (fill out the details). The details need to be retried from an existing Oracle 9i DB on the Windows(xp or later)
Obviously, I shall need to define the pixel format as to where the details (Name, amount, etc) are to be filled.
The major constraint is that the client needs / strongly prefers a executable , not code that is either interpreted or uses a VM. This is so that installation is extremely simple. This requirement really cannot be changed.
Now, the question is, how do I do it.
(.NET, java and python are out of the question, unless there is a way around the VMs)
I have never worked with MFC or other native windows APIs. I am also unfamiliar with GDI.
Do I have any other option? Any language that can abstract the complexities and can be packed into a x86 binary?
Also, if not then any code help with GDI would be appreciated.
The most obvious possibilities would probably be C, C++, and Delphi. There are a few others such as Ada (e.g., Gnat), but offhand I don't see a lot of reason to favor them (especially for a job this small).
At least the way I'd write this, the language would be almost irrelevant. I'd have it run almost entirely by an external configuration file that gave the name of each field, and the location where it should be printed. I'd probably use something like MM_LOMETRIC mapping mode, so Windows will handle most of the translation to real-world coordinates (and use tenths of a millimeter in the configuration file, so you can use the coordinates without any translation).
Probably the more difficult part of this would/will be the database connectivity. There are various libraries around to help out with that, so this won't be terribly difficult, but it's still not (quite) as trivial as the drawing part.
I was just writing a procedure that is looking for a newline and I was contemplating using Environment.NewLine vs '\n'.
Syntactically: Is Environment.NewLine clearer than '\n'?
And how important is portability really?
Depends on how likely you are to run your program on another platform doesn't it?
Any builtin API that abstracts platform specific semantics/syntax is always better to use, as it provides portability without much complexity overhead, but with easy gains for using it.
Writing portable C on the other-hand might be more complex and require a stronger business case for the effort. When dealing with things like C#, Python, Java and others ... use the provided abstractions for those annoyances across platforms, which in many cases is what they are reduced to.
It is not really important if the program is written for a specific known target audience/platform and you are certain its scope will not extend beyond that. But that's where the problem lies: often you cannot be certain about these things. You cannot look into the future.
Often writing portable code is not harder than writing a non-portable alternative. So, always strive to write portable code.
I would go with Environment.NewLine. This is because, depending on the language in use, we can change its definition. If we go with '\n', each compiler/language will have its own understanding and intepretation.
So, it would be preferrable to go with Environmental.NewLine.
Having portable code is a kind of a business opportunity. Say you only sell software for Windows now. Then the government of your country decides that it doesn't want to pay licensing fees to Microsoft and migrates all government institutions to Linux. If you can't quickly port your software you are no longer able to sell it to the government and that's big money.
Environment.NewLine works well, I've used it a lot in the past, however, if the app is a web app, and you insert an Environment.NewLine in the rendered html, it will have no effect in the browser window, it will however affect your source layout.
If I remember rightly Environment.NewLine will also add a carriage return if the system expects it, where \n wont.
I forgot to answer the portability aspect. I would always make my code more portable, as someone working in a consultancy I dont want to have to redevelop code so by using Environment.NewLine (for example) I would reduce the amount of work I would have to do should the code need to be reused in future.
Portability aside, wouldn't one always go with Environmental.NewLine (or whatever the equivalent is on your platform) as it's simply more human readable?
Two years down the line when 'A Random Maintenance Programmer' comes along who doesn't understand the nuances of \n Environmental.NewLine is also more bullet proof.
As they have different meaning, you should use the one that is correct for the data that you are handling.
Environment.NewLine means the newline combination for the current system.
A char/string literal like '\n' or "\r\n" means a specific newline combination regardless of the current system.
If the data is for example a text file that is produced by a regular text editor in the system, you would use Environment.NewLine to match the newlines. If the data is some data format where the newlines are defined as a specific character combination regardless of what system they are used on, you would use that specific literal.
For those things... \n, the newline character is a fixed character in the ASCII set, so that's portable to almost anything. It's up to you to decide how important you find your code to be portable across platforms...
To make this decision, figure out what the chances are of your code ever being ported to another platform. Then think what the investment will be to make it portable now vs. porting it later, when the time comes. Choose the one that's cheapest, or most convenient...
There are two aspects to your question: how important is portability, and how do I represent a newline in a portable way.
The need for Portability is, as others said before me, a business requirement: your own private command-line tool needn't be portable, while a commercial library may better be. Based on this need you can choose the platform you're working on.
The newline character has to be recognized by your parser. If you're working in Pytho, C++, ... the parser will always recognize the '\n' sequence. If you are writing regular expressions, the '$' will be recognized as end-of-line.
If the audience of your code is acquainted with '\n', I would use that one since it jumps out as a character. If you want to emphasize the meaning of "end-of-line", go with the symbolic thing.
Unless you're working on some tiny project, portability is probably very important. Even if you do program for Windows only, you will probably want your program to run on future versions of Windows. There are quite a lot of things that break in the new versions of Windows, the most common thing I see is copy protection which depends on certain obscure undocumented runtime internal structures of Windows to exist. Similarly in Unix-like O/S, you'd want that program to work on the latest kernel, which is why you must avoid using system calls and whatnot. The thing is, if your program is very non-portable against O/S or architectures, it's likely to not even be future proof. Heh, this reminds me of Windows registry/filesystem organization.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Interview question-
Often its pretty easier to debug a program once you have trouble with your code.You can put watches,breakpoints and etc.Life is much easier because of debugger.
But how to debug a program without a debugger?
One possible approach which I know is simply putting print statements in your code wherever you want to check for the problems.
Are there any other approaches other than this?
As its a general question, its not restricted to any specific language.So please share your thoughts on how you would have done it?
EDIT- While submitting your answer, please mention a useful resource (if you have any) about any concept. e.g. Logging
This will be lot helpful for those who don't know about it at all.(This includes me, in some cases :)
UPDATE: Michal Sznajderhas put a real "best" answer and also made it a community wiki.Really deserves lots of up votes.
Actually you have quite a lot of possibilities. Either with recompilation of source code or without.
With recompilation.
Additional logging. Either into program's logs or using system logging (eg. OutputDebugString or Events Log on Windows). Also use following steps:
Always include timestamp at least up to seconds resolution.
Consider adding thread-id in case of multithreaded apps.
Add some nice output of your structures
Do not print out enums with just %d. Use some ToString() or create some EnumToString() function (whatever suits your language)
... and beware: logging changes timings so in case of heavily multithreading you problems might disappear.
More details on this here.
Introduce more asserts
Unit tests
"Audio-visual" monitoring: if something happens do one of
use buzzer
play system sound
flash some LED by enabling hardware GPIO line (only in embedded scenarios)
Without recompilation
If your application uses network of any kind: Packet Sniffer or I will just choose for you: Wireshark
If you use database: monitor queries send to database and database itself.
Use virtual machines to test exactly the same OS/hardware setup as your system is running on.
Use some kind of system calls monitor. This includes
On Unix box strace or dtrace
On Windows tools from former Sysinternals tools like http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx, ProcessExplorer and alike
In case of Windows GUI stuff: check out Spy++ or for WPF Snoop (although second I didn't use)
Consider using some profiling tools for your platform. It will give you overview on thing happening in your app.
[Real hardcore] Hardware monitoring: use oscilloscope (aka O-Scope) to monitor signals on hardware lines
Source code debugging: you sit down with your source code and just pretend with piece of paper and pencil that you are computer. Its so called code analysis or "on-my-eyes" debugging
Source control debugging. Compare diffs of your code from time when "it" works and now. Bug might be somewhere there.
And some general tips in the end:
Do not forget about Text to Columns and Pivot Table in Excel. Together with some text tools (awk, grep or perl) give you incredible analysis pack. If you have more than 32K records consider using Access as data source.
Basics of Data Warehousing might help. With simple cube you may analyse tons of temporal data in just few minutes.
Dumping your application is worth mentioning. Either as a result of crash or just on regular basis
Always generate you debug symbols (even for release builds).
Almost last but not least: most mayor platforms has some sort of command line debugger always built in (even Windows!). With some tricks like conditional debugging and break-print-continue you can get pretty good result with obscure bugs
And really last but not least: use your brain and question everything.
In general debugging is like science: you do not create it you discover it. Quite often its like looking for a murderer in a criminal case. So buy yourself a hat and never give up.
First of all, what does debugging actually do? Advanced debuggers give you machine hooks to suspend execution, examine variables and potentially modify state of a running program. Most programs don't need all that to debug them. There are many approaches:
Tracing: implement some kind of logging mechanism, or use an existing one such as dtrace(). It usually worth it to implement some kind of printf-like function that can output generally formatted output into a system log. Then just throw state from key points in your program to this log. Believe it or not, in complex programs, this can be more useful than raw debugging with a real debugger. Logs help you know how you got into trouble, while a debugger that traps on a crash assumes you can reverse engineer how you got there from whatever state you are already in. For applications that you use other complex libraries that you don't own that crash in the middle of them, logs are often far more useful. But it requires a certain amount of discipline in writing your log messages.
Program/Library self-awareness: To solve very specific crash events, I often have implemented wrappers on system libraries such as malloc/free/realloc which extensions that can do things like walk memory, detect double frees, attempts to free non-allocated pointers, check for obvious buffer over-runs etc. Often you can do this sort of thing for your important internal data types as well -- typically you can make self-integrity checks for things like linked lists (they can't loop, and they can't point into la-la land.) Even for things like OS synchronization objects, often you only need to know which thread, or what file and line number (capturable by __FILE__, __LINE__) the last user of the synch object was to help you work out a race condition.
If you are insane like me, you could, in fact, implement your own mini-debugger inside of your own program. This is really only an option in a self-reflective programming language, or in languages like C with certain OS-hooks. When compiling C/C++ in Windows/DOS you can implement a "crash-hook" callback which is executed when any program fault is triggered. When you compile your program you can build a .map file to figure out what the relative addresses of all your public functions (so you can work out the loader initial offset by subtracting the address of main() from the address given in your .map file). So when a crash happens (even pressing ^C during a run, for example, so you can find your infinite loops) you can take the stack pointer and scan it for offsets within return addresses. You can usually look at your registers, and implement a simple console to let you examine all this. And voila, you have half of a real debugger implemented. Keep this going and you can reproduce the VxWorks' console debugging mechanism.
Another approach, is logical deduction. This is related to #1. Basically any crash or anomalous behavior in a program occurs when it stops behaving as expected. You need to have some feed back method of knowing when the program is behaving normally then abnormally. Your goal then is to find the exact conditions upon which your program goes from behaving correctly to incorrectly. With printf()/logs, or other feedback (such as enabling a device in an embedded system -- the PC has a speaker, but some motherboards also have a digital display for BIOS stage reporting; embedded systems will often have a COM port that you can use) you can deduce at least binary states of good and bad behavior with respect to the run state of your program through the instrumentation of your program.
A related method is logical deduction with respect to code versions. Often a program was working perfectly at one state, but some later version is not longer working. If you use good source control, and you enforce a "top of tree must always be working" philosophy amongst your programming team, then you can use a binary search to find the exact version of the code at which the failure occurs. You can use diffs then to deduce what code change exposes the error. If the diff is too large, then you have the task of trying to redo that code change in smaller steps where you can apply binary searching more effectively.
Just a couple suggestions:
1) Asserts. This should help you work out general expectations at different states of the program. As well familiarize yourself with the code
2) Unit tests. I have used these at times to dig into new code and test out APIs
One word: Logging.
Your program should write descriptive debug lines which include a timestamp to a log file based on a configurable debug level. Reading the resultant log files gives you information on what happened during the execution of the program. There are logging packages in every common programming language that make this a snap:
Java: log4j
.Net: NLog or log4net
Python: Python Logging
PHP: Pear Logging Framework
Ruby: Ruby Logger
C: log4c
I guess you just have to write fine-grain unit tests.
I also like to write a pretty-printer for my data structures.
I think the rest of the interview might go something like this...
Candidate: So you don't buy debuggers for your developers?
Interviewer: No, they have debuggers.
Candidate: So you are looking for programmers who, out of masochism or chest thumping hamartia, make things complicated on themselves even if they would be less productive?
Interviewer: No, I'm just trying to see if you know what you would do in a situation that will never happen.
Candidate: I suppose I'd add logging or print statements. Can I ask you a similar question?
Interviewer: Sure.
Candidate: How would you recruit a team of developers if you didn't have any appreciable interviewing skill to distinguish good prospects based on relevant information?
Peer review. You have been looking at the code for 8 hours and your brain is just showing you what you want to see in the code. A fresh pair of eyes can make all the difference.
Version control. Especially for large teams. If somebody changed something you rely on but did not tell you it is easy to find a specific change set that caused your trouble by rolling the changes back one by one.
On *nix systems, strace and/or dtrace can tell you an awful lot about the execution of your program and the libraries it uses.
Binary search in time is also a method: If you have your source code stored in a version-control repository, and you know that version 100 worked, but version 200 doesn't, try to see if version 150 works. If it does, the error must be between version 150 and 200, so find version 175 and see if it works... etc.
use println/log in code
use DB explorer to look at data in DB/files
write tests and put asserts in suspicious places
More generally, you can monitor side effects and output of the program, and trigger certain events in the program externally.
A Print statement isn't always appropriate. You might use other forms of output such as writing to the Event Log or a log file, writing to a TCP socket (I have a nice utility that can listen for that type of trace from my program), etc.
For programs that don't have a UI, you can trigger behavior you want to debug by using an external flag such as the existence of a file. You might have the program wait for the file to be created, then run through a behavior you're interested in while logging relevant events.
Another file's existence might trigger the program's internal state to be written to your logging mechanism.
like everyone else said:
Logging
Asserts
Extra Output
&
your favorite task manager or process
explorer
links here and here
Another thing I have not seen mentioned here that I have had to use quite a bit on embedded systems is serial terminals.
You can cannot a serial terminal to just about any type of device on the planet (I have even done it to embedded CPUs for hydraulics, generators, etc). Then you can write out to the serial port and see everything on the terminal.
You can get real fancy and even setup a thread that listens to the serial terminal and responds to commands. I have done this as well and implemented simple commands to dump a list, see internal variables, etc all from a simple 9600 baud RS-232 serial port!
Spy++ (and more recently Snoop for WPF) are tremendous for getting an insight into Windows UI bugs.
A nice read would be Delta Debugging from Andreas Zeller. It's like binary search for debugging
I want to know if there are method to quickly find bugs in the program.
It seems that the more you master the architecture of your software, the more quickly
you can locate the bugs.
How the programmers improve their ability to find a bug?
Logging, and unit tests. The more information you have about what happened, the easier it is to reproduce it. The more modular you can make your code, the easier it is to check that it really is misbehaving where you think it is, and then check that your fix solves the problem.
Divide and conquer. Whenever you are debugging, you should be thinking about cutting down the possible locations of the problem. Every time you run the app, you should be trying to eliminate a possible source and zero in on the actual location. This can be done with logging, with a debugger, assertions, etc.
Here's a prophylactic method after you have found a bug: I find it really helpful to take a minute and think about the bug.
What was the bug exactly in essence.
Why did it occur.
Could you have found it earlier, easier.
Anything else you learned from the bug.
I find taking a minute to think about these things will make it far less likely that you will produce the same bug in the future.
I will assume you mean logic bugs. The best way I have found to capture logic bugs is to implement some sort of testing scheme. Check out jUnit as the standard. Pretty much you define a set of accepted outputs of your methods. Every time you compile your system it checks all of your test cases. If you have introduced new logic that breaks your tests, you will know about it instantly and know exactly what you have to fix.
Test driven design is a pretty big movement in programming right now. You will be hard pressed to find a language that doesn't support some kind of testing. Even JavaScript has a multitude of test suites.
Experience makes you a better debugger. Pay close attention to the bugs that you AND others commonly make. Try to figure out if/how these bugs apply to ALL code that affects you, not the single instance of where the bug was seen.
Raymond Chen is famous for his powers of psychic debugging.
Most of what looks like psychic
debugging is really just knowing what
people tend to get wrong.
That means that you don't necessarily have to be intimately familiar with the architecture / system. You just need enough knowledge to understand the types of bugs that apply and are easy to make.
I personally take the approach of thinking about where the bug may be in the code before actually opening up the code and taking a look. When you first start with this approach, it may not actually work very well, especially if you are pretty unfamiliar with the code base. However, over time someone will be able to tell you the behavior they are experiencing and you'll have a good idea where the problem is located or you may even know what to fix in the code to remedy the problem before even looking at the code.
I was on a project for several years that maintained by a vendor. They were not very good debuggers and most of the time it was up to us to point them to an area of the code that had the problem. What made our problem worse was that we didn't have a nice way to view the source code, so a lot of our "debugging" was just feeling.
Error checking and reporting. The #1 newbie coder debugging mistake is to turn off error reporting, avoid checking for whether what's going on makes sense, etc etc. In general, people feel like if they can't see anything going wrong then nothing is going wrong. Which of course could not be further from the case.
Instead, your code should be chock full of error conditions that will make lots of noise, with detailed reporting, someplace you will see it. (This doesn't mean inside a production web page.) Then, instead of having to trace an error all over the place because it got passed through sixteen layers of execution before it finally got someplace that broke, your errors start happening proximately to the actual issue.
It seems that the more you master the
architecture of your software ,the
more quickly you can locate the bugs.
After understanding the architecture, one's ability to find bugs in the application increases with their ability to identify and write extensive tests.
Know your tools.
Make sure that you know how to use conditional breakpoints and watches in your debugger.
Use static analysis tools as well - they can point out the more obvious issues.
Sleep and rest.
Use programming methods that produce fewer bugs in the first place.
If to implement a single stand-alone functional requirement it takes N separate point-edits to source code, the number of bugs put into the code is roughly proportional to N, so find programming methods that minimize N. Ways to do this: DRY (don't repeat yourself), code generation, and DSL (domain-specific-language).
Where bugs are likely, have unit tests.
Obviously.IMHO, the best unit tests are monte-carlo.
Make intermediate results visible.
For example, compilers have intermediate representations, in the form of 4-tuples. If there is a bug, the intermediate code can be examined. That tells if the bug is in the first or second half of the compiler.
P.S. Most programmers are not aware that they have a choice of how much data structure to use. The less data structure you use, the less are the chances for bugs (and performance issues) caused by it.
I find tracepoints to be an invaluable debugging tool. They are a bit like logging, except you create them during a debugging session to solve a particular issue, like breakpoints.
Printing the stacktrace in a tracepoint can be especially useful. For example, you can print the hash code and stacktrace in the constructor of an object, and then later on when the object is used again you can search for its hashcode to see which client code created it. Same for seeing who disposed it or called a certain method etc.
They are also great for debugging issues related to window focus changes etc, where the debugger would interfere if you drop in break mode.
Static code tools like FindBugs
Assertions, assertions, and assertions.
Some areas of our code has 4 or 5 assertions for each line of real code. When we get a bug report the first thing that happens is that the customer data is processed in our debug build 99 times out a hundred an assert will fire near the cause of the bug.
Additionally our debug build perform redundant calculations to ensure that an optimized algorithm is returning the correct result, and also debug functions are used to examine the sanity of data structures.
The hardest thing new developers have to contend with is getting their code to survive the assertions of the code gthey are calling.
Additionally we do not allow any code to be putback to toplevel that causes any integration or unit test to fail.
Stepping through the code, examining flow/state where unexpected behavior is occurring. (Then develop a test for it, of course).
Writing Debug.Write(message) in your code and using DebugView is another option. And then run your application find out what is going on.
"Architecture" in software means something like:
Several components
The components interact across clearly-defined interfaces
Each component has a well-defined responsibility
The responsibility of one component is unlike the responsibilities of other components
So, as you said, the better the architecture the easier it is to find bugs.
First: knowing the bug, you can decide which functionality is broken, and therefore know which component implements that functionality. For example, if the bug is that something isn't being logged properly, therefore this bug should be in one of 3 places:
In the component that's responsible for logging (your logging library)
Or, above that in the application code which is using this library
Or, below that in the system code which this library is using
Second: examine the data transfered across the interfaces between components. To continue the previous example above:
Set a debugger breakpoint on the application code which invokes the logger API, to verify whether the logger API is being used correctly (e.g. whether it's being invoked at all, whether parameters are as-expected, etc.).
Doing this tells you whether the bug is in the component above this interface, or in the component that's below this interface.
Repeat (perhaps using binary search if the call stack is very deep) until you've found which component is at fault.
When you come to the point that you think there must be a bug in the OS, check your assertions -- and put them into the code with "assert" statements.
Conversely, as you are writing the code, think of the range of valid inputs for your algorithms and put in assertions to make sure you have what you think you have. Same goes for output: Check that you produced what you think you produced.
E.g. if you expect a non-empty list:
l = getList(input)
assert l, "List was empty for input: %s" % str(input)
I'm part of the QA team # work, and knowing anything about the product and how it is developed, helps a lot in finding bugs, also when I make new QA tools I pass it to our dev team to test it, finding bugs in your own code is just plain hard!
Some people say programmers are tainted, so we cannot see bugs in their own product; we are not talking about code here, we are beyond that, usability and functionality itself.
Meanwhile unit testing seams to be a nice solution to find bugs in your own code, its totally pointless if you're wrong even before writing the unit test, how are you going to find the bugs then? you don't!, let your co-worker find them, hire a QA guy.
Scientific debugging is what I always used, and it greatly helps.
Basically, if you can replicate a bug, you can track its origin. You should then experiment some tests, observe the results, and infer hypotheses on why the bug happens.
Writing about all your hypotheses, attempts, expected results and observed results can help you track down the bugs, particularly if they're nasty.
There are automated tools that can help you with that process, particularly git-bisect (and similar bisection tools on other revision systems) to quickly find which change introduced the bug, unit testing to reproduce a bug and prevent regressions in your code (can be used in combination with bisect), and delta debugging to find the culprit in your code (similar to git-bisect but whereas git-bisect works on the code history, delta debugging works on the code directly).
But whatever the tools you are using, the most important benefit is in the scientific methodology, as this is the formalization of what most experienced debuggers do.
I've been testing out the performance and memory profiler AQTime to see if it's worthwhile spending those big $$$ for it for my Delphi application.
What amazes me is how it can give you source line level performance tracing (which includes the number of times each line was executed and the amount of time that line took) without modifying the application's source code and without adding an inordinate amount of time to the debug run.
The way that they do this so efficiently makes me think there might be some techniques/technologies used here that I don't know about that would be useful to know about.
Do you know what kind of methods they use to capture the execution line-by-line without code changes?
Are there other profiling tools that also do non-invasive line-by-line checking and if so, do they use the same techniques?
I've made an open source profiler for Delphi which does the same:
http://code.google.com/p/asmprofiler/
It's not perfect, but it's free :-). Is also uses the Detour technique.
It stores every call (you must manual set which functions you want to profile),
so it can make an exact call history tree, including a time chart (!).
This is just speculation, but perhaps AQtime is based on a technology that is similar to Microsoft Detours?
Detours is a library for instrumenting
arbitrary Win32 functions on x86, x64,
and IA64 machines. Detours intercepts
Win32 functions by re-writing the
in-memory code for target functions.
I don't know about Delphi in particular, but a C application debugger can do line-by-line profiling relatively easily - it can load the code and associate every code path with a block of code. Then it can break on all the conditional jump instructions and just watch and see what code path is taken. Debuggers like gdb can operate relatively efficiently because they work through the kernel and don't modify the code, they just get informed when each line is executed. If something causes the block to be exited early (longjmp), the debugger can hook that and figure out how far it got into the blocks when it happened and increment only those lines.
Of course, it would still be tough to code, but when I say easily I mean that you could do it without wasting time breaking on each and every instruction to update a counter.
The long-since-defunct TurboPower also had a great profiling/analysis tool for Delphi called Sleuth QA Suite. I found it a lot simpler than AQTime, but also far easier to get meaningful result. Might be worth trying to track down - eBay, maybe?