I'm having a leak which is very hard to detect;
Can valgrind tell me which is the last call where address was accessible? and what were the values of the variables? I use Clion, can it just break when it happens?
There is no "instantaneous" detection of leaks functionality in valgrind/memcheck
that reports a leak exactly at the time the last pointer to a block is lost.
There was an experimental tool that tried to do that, but it was never considered for integration in valgrind, due to various difficulties to make this work properly.
If your leak is easy to reproduce, you can run your application under valgrind +
gdb/vgdb. You can then add breaks at various points in your program, and then
use monitor commands such as "leak_check" or "who_points_at" to check if the leak already happened. By refining the locations where to put a break, this might help to find when the last pointer to a block is lost.
See e.g. https://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.monitor-commands for more info.
windows release windbg preview with TTD(time trave debugging).
It's very brilliant. But I meet a problem.
When I set TTD, I can not edit register or memory data, like this
How can I edit register value, then save status and continue. So there are two status, one status is that register is changed, another is not changed.
I'm not familiar with TTD, so TTD can do this or has a function like this?
No it's not possible.
TTD is basically a trace record of a program execution. Put simply it goes like this: for each instruction executed by the program, record (in a database) the state of all the registers, which memory address is accessed (if any) what is its value (and if a write happens what is the new value).
What you have at the end is the execution database, a trace of what your program did; you can interrogate the database, go wherever you want in it, even backward (which is why it is possible to "execute" something backward in TTD) but remember: the execution has already happened when you are using TTD, you are just 'browsing' through the execution database.
You are not allowed to change anything in the database, because doing so would impact the remaining of the program execution and, as the program execution has already been made, the debugger would have not mean to execute the new changes.
side note: there are some "debuggers" (more exactly proof of concept tools) that allows this kind of execution (record a trace, and then change the trace), in this case the execution is a mix between symbolic and what is called concolic execution. It is still an open problem in computer science as it leads quickly to combinatoric "explosion" due to all the cascading effects instructions generates.
A variable value changes to something unreasonable, but there is too many subroutines to manually find where the change happens. How can I use gdb to find the point when a condition (eg. "x<1") is no longer true?
Use a watchpoint.
You can use a watchpoint to stop execution whenever the value of an expression changes, without having to predict a particular place where this may happen. (This is sometimes called a data breakpoint.)
I'm not sure how to really put my question into words so let me try to explain it with an example:
Let's say my program runs into some weird behavior at a specific action. I already find some code which is the cause of this weird behavior. When disabling this sequence I don't run into this behavior. Unfortunately, I need this code because something else is not working then.
So, what I gonna do next is figuring out why something is going different when that code excerpt is active.
In order to better understand what's going on I sometimes want to run the whole action including the 'bad code' and sometimes without. Then I can compare the outcome, for example what happens in the UI or what my function returns.
The first approach which comes to my mind is to run my program with the code enabled, do whatever I want, then stop my program, comment out the code, recompile and run again. Um... that sounds dumb. Especially if I then again need to turn on that code to see another time the other behavior, and then again turn off, and on, and off and so on.
It's not an option for me to use breakpoints and influence the statement order or to modify values so that I run or not run into if-statements, for-loops etc. Two examples:
I debug a timing critical behavior and when I halt the program the timing changes significantly. Thus, the first breakpoint I can set must be at the end of the action. 1
I expect a tooltip or other window to appear which is 'suppressed' when focus is given to VS. Thus, I cannot use any breakpoints at all. Neither in the beginning nor at the end of the action.1
Is there any technique in Visual Studio 2012 which allows me to mark this code to be optional and I can decide whether or not I want to run this code sequence before I execute the action? I think of something like if(true|false) on a higher level.
I'm not looking for a solution where I need to re-run my program several times. In that case I could still doing the simple approach of simply commenting out the code with #if false.
1 Note that I, of course, may set a breakpoint when I need to look into a specific variable at a certain position (if I haven't written the value into output) but will turn off breakpoints again to run the whole action in one go.
In the Visual Studio debugger you can set a breakpoint right in front of your "code in question". When the code stops at that point, you can elect to let it continue or you can right-click on any other line and select Set Next Statement.
It's kind of a weird option, but I've come to appreciate it.
The only option I can think of is to add something to your UI that only appears when debugging, giving you the option to include/exclude the operations in question.
While you're at it, you might want to enable resetting the application to a "known state" from the UI as well.
I think of something like if(true|false) on a higher level.
Why "on a higher level"? Why not use exactly this?
You want a piece of code sometimes executed, sometimes not, and the switch should be changed at run time, not at compile time - this obviously leads to
if(condition)
{
// code in stake
}
The catch here is what kind of condition you will use - maybe a variable you set to true in the release version of your code, and to false sometimes in your debug version. Maybe the value is taken from a configuration file, maybe from an environment variable, maybe calculated by some kind of logic in your program, whatever and whenever you like.
EDIT: you could also introduce a boolean variable in your code for condition, initialize it to true by default and change its value using the debugger whenever you like.
Preprocessor Directives might be what you're after. They're bits of code for the compiler to execute, identifiable by starting with a # character (and stylistically, by default they don't follow the indent pattern of your code, instead always residing firmly at the left-hand edge of the editor):
#define INCLUDE_DODGY_CODE
public void MyMethodWithDodgyBits() {
#if INCLUDE_DODGY_CODE
myDodgyMethod();
#endif
myOkMethod();
}
In this case, if #define INCLUDE_DODGY_CODE was included, the myDodgyMethod() call will be compiled into your program. Otherwise, the call will be skipped by the compiler and will simply not exist in your binary.
There are a couple of options for debugging as you ask.
Visual Studio has a number of options to directly navigate through code. You can use the Set Next Statement feature to move directly to a particular statement. You can also directly edit values through the Immediate Window the QuickWatch and the tooltip that hovers over variables while debugging.
Visual Studio also has the ability to playback the execution history. Take a look at IntelliTrace to get started. It can be helpful when you have multiple areas of concern that are interacting and generating the error condition.
You can also wrap your sections of code within conditional blocks, and set the conditional variables as appropriate. That could be while you're debugging, or you could pass parameters in through a configuration file. Using conditional checks may be easier than manually stepping through code if there are a number of statements you wish to exclude.
It sometimes depends on the version of VS and the language, but you can happily edit the code (to comment it out, or wrap it in a big #ifdef 0) then press alt+F10 and the compiler will recompile, relink and continue execution as if you'd never fiddled with it.
But while that works beautifully in VC++ (since VS v6 IIRC), C# can have issues - I find (with VS2010) that I cannot edit and continue in this way with functions containing any lambda (mainly linq) statements, and 64-bit code never used to do this too. Still, its worth experimenting with as its really useful sometimes.
I have worked on applications that have optional code used for debugging alone that should not appear in the production environment. This segment of optional code was easiest for us to control using a config file since it didn't require a re-compile to change.
Such a fix might not be the end all be all for your end result, but it might help get through it until a fix is found. If you have multiple optional sections that need to be tested in combination this style of fix could require multiple keys in the config file, which could be a downside and a pain to keep track of.
Your question isn't exactly clear, which is possibly why there are so many answers which you think are invalid. You may want to consider rewording it if no one seems able to answer the question.
With the risk of giving another non-valid answer I'll add some input on how I've dealt with the issue in the past.
The easiest way is to place any optional code within
#if DEBUG
//Optional code here
#endif
That way, when you run in debug mode the code is implemented and when you run in release mode it's not. Switching between the two requires clicking one button.
I've also solved the same problem in a similar way with a simple flag:
bool runOptionalCode = false;
then
if (runOptionalCode)
{
//Place optional code here
}
Again, switching between modes requires changing one word, so is a simple task. You mention this in your question but discount it for reasons that are unclear. As I said, it requires very little effort to switch between the two.
If you need to make changes between the code while it's running the best way is to use a UI item or a keystroke which modifies the flag mentioned in the example above. Depending on your application though this could be more effort than it's worth. In the past I've found that when I have a key listener already implemented as part of the project, having a couple of key strokes decide whether to run my debug (optional) code works best. In an application without key listeners I'd rather stick with one of the previous methods.
I read a description of how intellitrace in VS2010 Ultimate is like going back in time, in the execution of your application.
However, this sounds just like moving the line marker to a previous line (that yellow arrow in the breakpoints margin to the left of the code, when you are stepping through code).
Thanks
From Wikipedia:
Unlike the current debugger, that records only the currently-active stack, IntelliTrace records all events like prior function calls, method parameters, events, exceptions etc. This allows the code execution to be rewound in case a breakpoint wasn't set where the error occurred.
When you move the execution point back you run the same code again, but the variables might have different values. This is because running the code the first time may have changed some variables.
With Intellitrace you should be able to run the same code again with the same values as the first time. I have not tested it though.
The difference is that intellitrace keeps the history of each of those moments that it recorded. So unlike moving the line marker it is showing you the value of all the variables at that point in time. Similar to how a memory dump but for debugging.
It relies heavily on Tracing hence the name. Here is a good explanation of how it works. It's actually pretty cool.