I am building somewhat larger c++ code bases than I'm used to. I have a need for both good logging and debugging, at least to the console, and also speed.
Generally, I like to do something like this
// Some header file
bool DEBUG = true;
And then in some other file
if (DEBUG) cout << "Some debugging information" << endl;
The issue with this (among others) is that the branching lowers the speed of the final executable. In order to fix this, I'd have to go into the files at the end and remove all these, and then I couldn't use them again later without saving them to some other file and then putting them back in.
What is the most efficient solution to this quandry? Python decorators provide a nice approach that I'm not certain exists in CPP.
Thanks!
The classic way is to make that DEBUG not a variable, but a preprocessor macro. Then you can have two builds: one with the macro defined to 1, the other with it defined to 0 (or not defined at all, depending on how you plan to use it). Then you can either do #ifdef to completely remove the debug code from being seen by the compiler, or just put it into a regular if, the optimizer will take care of removing the branch with the constant conditional.
Related
I am writing a scientific computation code in C++. There are outputs that I want to write in a console and outputs that I write into a file. However, when debugging after implementing a new feature, it is useful to print out much more information than usual. So far I was just sending more information to std::cout/clog and commented these lines out when not needed.
What I want is like std::clog, which would go into a file when needed, or not do anything at all, when not needed. It is ok, if I need to recompile the code to switch between the two regimes. It is important that nothing happens when not needed, because for a real large calculation the log file would be enormous (or the the console full of rubbish) and all the writing would slow the calculation down.
I am looking for the smallest possible implementation, ideally using only standard libraries for portability.
The obvious solution is to have a global variable, redirect clog to a file and then use an if statement.
bool DEBUG = true;
std::ofstream out("logfile");
std::clog.rdbuf(out.rdbuf());
...
if (DEBUG) std::clog << "my message" << std::endl;
...
Is there a more elegant way of doing this?
Edit:
I would like to avoid using non-standard libraries and preprocessor macros (program is spread across many files and also a bad programming habit in general). One way I could imagine this working, but I don't know how to do it, is to create a globally accessible object that would be able to accept messages using << and would save them to a file. Then I could just comment out the line inside this object class that saves it to a file. However, I don't know how much performance impact may result from passing messages to such a disfunctional object.
You may use any external logging library for C/C++.
Or create your own small implementation with only utilities what you need.
A traditional logging mechanism is build on macros (or inline functions) and looks like:
#define LOG_MESSAGE(msg) \
{
#ifdef DEBUG
// your debug logging
#else
// your release logging, may be leaved empty
#endif // DEBUG
}
It's also useful to add different logging levels: Error, Warning, Info, etc.
struct Foo{
Bar get(){
}
}
auto f = Foo();
f.get();
For example you decide that get was a very poor choice for a name but you have already used it in many different files and manually changing ever occurrence is very annoying.
You also can't really make a global substitution because other types may also have a method called get.
Is there anything for D to help refactor names for types, functions, variables etc?
Here's how I do it:
Change the name in the definition
Recompile
Go to the first error line reported and replace old with new
Goto 2
That's semi-manual, but I find it to be pretty easy and it goes quickly because the compiler error message will bring you right to where you need to be, and most editors can read those error messages well enough to dump you on the correct line, then it is a simple matter of telling it to repeat the last replacement again. (In my vim setup with my hotkeys, I hit F4 for next error message, then dot for repeat last change until it is done. Even a function with a hundred uses can be changed reliably* in a couple minutes.)
You could probably write a script that handles 90% of cases automatically too by just looking for ": Error: " in the compiler's output, extracting the file/line number, and running a plain text replace there. If the word shows up only once and outside a string literal, you can automatically replace it, and if not, ask the user to handle the remaining 10% of cases manually.
But I think it is easy enough to do with my editor hotkeys that I've never bothered trying to script it.
The one case this doesn't catch is if there's another function with the same name that might still compile. That should never happen if you do this change in isolation, because an ambiguous name wouldn't compile without it.
In that case, you could probably do a three-step compiler-assisted change:
Make sure your code compiles before. Then add #disable to the thing you want to rename.
Compile. Every place it complains about it being unusable for being disabled, do the find/replace.
Remove #disable and rename the definition. Recompile again to make sure there's nothing you missed like child classes (the compiler will then complain "method foo does not override any function" so they stand right out too.
So yeah, it isn't fully automated, but just changing it and having the compiler errors help find what's left is good enough for me.
Some limited refactoring support can be found in major IDE plugins like Mono-D or VisualD. I remember that Brian Schott had plans to add similar functionality to his dfix tool by adding dependency on dsymbol but it doesn't seem implemented yet.
Not, however, that all such options are indeed of a very limited robustness right now. This is because figuring out the fully qualified name of any given symbol is very complex task in D, one that requires full semantics analysis to be done 100% correctly. Think about local imports, templates, function overloading, mixins and how it all affects identifying the symbol.
In the long run it is quite certain that we need to wait before reference D compiler frontend becomes available as a library to implement such refactoring tool in clean and truly reliable way.
A good find all feature can be better than a bad refactoring which, as mentioned previously, requires semantic.
Personally I have a find all feature in Coedit which displays the context of a match and works on all the project sources.
It's fast to process the results.
I have following requirement:
Adding text at the entry and exit point of any function.
Not altering the source code, beside inserting from above (so no pre-processor or anything)
For example:
void fn(param-list)
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some code
EXIT_TEXT
}
But not only in such a simple case, it'd also run with pre-processor directives!
Example:
void fn(param-list)
#ifdef __WIN__
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some windows code
EXIT_TEXT
}
#else
{
ENTRY_TEXT (param-list)
//some any-os code
if (condition)
{
return; //should become EXIT_TEXT
}
EXIT_TEXT
}
So my question is: Is there a proper way doing this?
I already tried some work with parsers used by compilers but since they all rely on running a pre-processor before parsing, they are useless to me.
Also some of the token generating parser, which do not need a pre-processor are somewhat useless because they generate a memory-mapping of tokens, which then leads to a complete new source code, instead of just inserting the text.
One thing I am working on is to try it with FLEX (or JFlex), if this is a valid option, I would appreciate some input on it. ;-)
EDIT:
To clarify a little bit: The purpose is to allow something like a stack trace.
I want to trace every function call, and in order to follow the call-hierachy, I need to place a macro at the entry-point of a function and at the exit point of a function.
This builds a function-call trace. :-)
EDIT2: Compiler-specific options are not quite suitable since we have many different compilers to use, and many that are propably not well supported by any tools out there.
Unfortunately, your idea is not only impractical (C++ is complex to parse), it's also doomed to fail.
The main issue you have is that exceptions will bypass your EXIT_TEXT macro entirely.
You have several solutions.
As has been noted, the first solution would be to use a platform dependent way of computing the stack trace. It can be somewhat imprecise, especially because of inlining: ie, small functions being inlined in their callers, they do not appear in the stack trace as no function call was generated at assembly level. On the other hand, it's widely available, does not require any surgery of the code and does not affect performance.
A second solution would be to only introduce something on entry and use RAII to do the exit work. Much better than your scheme as it automatically deals with multiple returns and exceptions, it suffers from the same issue: how to perform the insertion automatically. For this you will probably want to operate at the AST level, and modify the AST to introduce your little gem. You could do it with Clang (look up the c++11 migration tool for examples of rewrites at large) or with gcc (using plugins).
Finally, you also have manual annotations. While it may seem underpowered (and a lot of work), I would highlight that you do not leave logging to a tool... I see 3 advantages to doing it manually: you can avoid introducing this overhead in performance sensitive parts, you can retain only a "summary" of big arguments and you can customize the summary based on what's interesting for the current function.
I would suggest using LLVM libraries & Clang to get started.
You could also leverage the C++ language to simplify your process. If you just insert a small object into the code that is constructed on function scope entrance & rely on the fact that it will be destroyed on exit. That should massively simplify recording the 'exit' of the function.
This does not really answer you question, however, for your initial need, you may use the backtrace() function from execinfo.h (if you are using GCC).
How to generate a stacktrace when my gcc C++ app crashes
I'm using VS2010
I have a project with several headers and one file with the main() function.
For testing purposes I'd like to be able to easily another main() function that would instanciate different things than my original main.
Is there an easy way to define 2 "main" function, and easily switch between them?
The best would be to compile 2 binaries, one that starts at main1() and the other at main2(), or it can be a solution that requires to recompile some files, it doesn't matter
You are almost always better off using a separate compiled binary with a separate main.
First, "for testing purposes" might include code that should never be in the real binary -- such as test library code. That requires a second binary.
Second, if there is nothing that should be omitted, you still have the issue that anyone can supply an argument or copy and rename the binary to match argv[0] that will give this functionality.
I know it might be difficult to architect your project files to create separate real and test programs, but in most cases, you will have a much better result.
In linker options you have entry point name. This way you can have main1() and main2():
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/f9t8842e(v=vs.80).aspx
"There can be only one" What you need to do is create a set of sub functions that main invokes biased upon conditions or though conditional compilation statements.
#ifdef TESTING
int main() {
/* whatever */
}
#else
int main() {
/* whatever else */
}
#endif
An application can only have one main. If you want to run two things, you need to do so in main, via:
The name of the executable run (hint: the first argv is the name of the executable)
Further command line parameters (program -thingone)
Lazily commenting out calls to functions which do something.
Besides specifying different entry points in the linker or having a real main() that calls whichever lower level function you want to pretend is a top level function, you could add a project for each main() you want.
This can be somewhat annoying in VS because separate projects aren't set up by default to share source code.. Some other IDEs make it easier have different executables (or other build products) built from different subsets of a shared set of source code, but I've never found that to be easy using VS's defaults.
I have the following code snippet:
#ifdef DO_LOG
#define log(p) record(p)
#else
#define log(p)
#endif
void record(char *data){
.....
.....
}
Now if I call log("hello world") in my code and DO_LOG isn't defined, will the line be compiled, in other words will it eat up the memory for the string "hello world"?
P.S. There are a lot of record calls in the program and it is memory sensitive, so is there any other way to conditionally compile so that it only depends on the #define DO_LOG?
This should be trivial to verify for yourself by inspecting the resulting binary.
I would say "no", since the expression totally goes away, the compiler will never see the string (it's removed by the preprocessor's macro expansion).
Since the preprocessor runs before the compiler, the line will not even exist when the compiler runs. So the answer is no, it does not use any memory at all.
No, it will not be in the binary. It will not even be compiled - the preprocessor will expand it into an empty string prior to the compilation, so the compiler will not even see it.
No. The preprocessor is executed prior to compilation, and so the code will never even be seen. I would like to add, though, that if you are interested in adding logging to your C++ application, you might want to use the Log4Cxx library. It uses similar macros which you can completely elide from your application, but when logging is enabled, it supports several different levels of logging (based on importance/severity) as well as multiple different "appenders" to which to send logging output (e.g. syslog, console, files, network I/O, etc.).
The full API documentation may be found at Log4Cxx API docs. Also, if you have any Java developers on board who have used Log4J, they should feel right at home with Log4Cxx (and convince you to use it).