Related
I've built some C++ code that uses OpenACC and compiled it with the PGI compiler for use on the Tesla GPU.
Compilation succeeds without any warnings.
I run the program and get two errors:
call to cuStreamSynchronize returned error 717: Invalid address space
call to cuMemFreeHost returned error 717: Invalid address space
The internet doesn't seem to know much about this, other than to suggest enabling unified memory so that the problem is automatically swept under the rug. I'm not into that kind of solution.
How do I go about debugging this?
With C++ code running only on the CPU, I'd fire up gdb, do a backtrace, and say, "Ah ha!"
But now I have code living on the CPU and the GPU and data flowing between the two. I don't even know what tools to use.
A fallback is to start commenting out lines until the problem goes away, but that seems suboptimal too.
You can use "cuda-gdb" to debug the device code or use "cuda-memcheck" to check for memory errors.
Though I'm not sure either will help here. The error is indicating that the device code is issuing an instruction using an address from the wrong memory space. For example, using a shared memory pointer with an instruction that expects a global memory pointer.
I have not seen this error before nor do I see any previous bug reports for it, so can only theorize as to the cause. One possibility is if you have a shared memory variable (scalar or array in a "private" clause, or "cache" directive) that's passed from a outer gang loop to a vector routine. In this case, the vector routine may be accessing the variable as if it's in global memory.
Most likely whatever the cause, it's a compiler error. If possible, please post or send to PGI Customer Service (trs#pgroup.com) a reproducing example and I'll get it to our compiler engineers for investigation.
I can also try to get you a work-around once I better understand the cause. Though in the meantime you can try compiling with "-ta=tesla:nollvm,keepgpu". "nollvm" will cause the compiler to generate an intermediary CUDA C version of the OpenACC kernels as opposed to the default LLVM device code generator. "keepgpu" will keep the intermediary ".gpu" file which you can inspect.
There are some helpful environment variables that aid in debugging. Any combination can be enabled:
export PGI_ACC_TIME=1 #Profile time usage
export PGI_ACC_NOTIFY=1 #Set to values 0-3 where 3 is the most detailed
export PGI_ACC_DEBUG=1 #Extra debugging info
I have a fairly large solution that occasionally crashes. Sadly, these crashes appear to only occur in release build. When I attach the debugger upon crashing, I get the message:
"No symbols are loaded for any call
stack frame. The source code cannot be
displayed"
This makes it quite hard to find the cause of the crashes. I am using the default release build settings of visual studio 2008, in which 'debug information format' is set to 'Program Database (/Zi)'.
Do you have any tips that might help me find the bug? For example, could I change some settings in my projects so that the crashes might still occur but get more meaningful information in the debugger?
Update: The problem was a very rarely occurring logic error that in itself should not cause a crash, but apparently caused a crash elsewhere. Solving the logic error solved the crashing behavior.
To anyone that came here looking for a resolution of a similar problem: best of luck, you're in for a rough ride. What eventually helped me locate the problem was adding a lot of bounds checks in the code (that I could enable/disable with preprocessor directives) and compiling for linux and running with gdb/valgrind.
First ensure you are building symbols (debug info) for release build, and that the debugger can find them (this may require configuring the symbol path—a symbol server would be better).
Second use the Modules view while debugging to confirm you have the symbols loaded.
The simplest way to get the symbols is to put the .pdb files in the same location as the assemblies.
Check out John Robbins blog for many many more details of doing this.
If the code crashes after optimisation is applied (as in the default release), it is most likely that your code is in some way flawed and relies on undefined behaviour which changes between the release and debug build.
Try switching off optimisation in the release build to see if the problem goes away (or switch it on in the debug build to see if it occurs). If it does, you should still aim to find and fix the bug, but you will at least know to be looking for undefined behaviour.
Set the compiler warning level to maximum (/W4) and warnings as errors (/Wx) and fix all warnings (and not simply by casting everything in sight - think about it!). When optimisation is applied, you may well get warnings that did not occur in the debug build because of the more extensive code analysis that is performed - this is useful static analysis.
You can if you wish switch debugging on in an optimised build, but it is unlikely that you will be able to follow what is going on since the optimiser may re-order code, and remove code and variables.
Sounds to me like that stack frame was blown. Trivial to do with a buffer overflow, just copy a large string in a small char[] for example. That wipes out the return address. The code just keeps running until the return, then bombs when it pops a bad address off the stack. Or worse, if the address happens to be valid.
The debugger cannot display anything meaningful since it cannot walk the stack to show you how the code got to the crash location. The actual crash location doesn't tell you anything.
Tuff as nails to debug. You have to get it reproducible and you need either stepping or tracing to find the last known-good function. The one that produces the crash after stepping out of it is the one with the bug. You can actually see the statement that does the damage, the debugger call stack suddenly goes catatonic. If you can't get a consistent repro then a thorough code review is all that's left. You can justify the time by calling it a "security review". Good luck with it.
A few reasons why a debug build might not allow a defect to express itself:
Some debug configurations initialize all variables.
Debug memory allocations and deallocations might be more forgiving of pointer abuse.
The debug build might execute at a different speed thus masking a race condition.
Since you are using C++ you might consider using a static analysis tool like valgrind to point out possible uninitialized data and pointer mishandling.
Race conditions may be tracked down by adding log output with time stamps. You first have to narrow down where in your "large solution" the problem occurs by observing what happened just prior to the crash. Be sure to use a deferred logging mechanism -- one that does the string processing later or in another thread so it doesn't itself impact the timing too much.
Did you know you can still debug release builds? Just hit F5 (rather than CTRL+F5) to run in debug.
Is it repeatable i.e. are you doing something specific when it goes bang?
If so, set a breakpoint in your code before the crash and hit F5 to run in debug (make sure you're using your release build though). Then step through until your app crashes. I generally find this faster than adding logging and debug print statements.
If not, just running in debug mode will sometimes catch the error and halt on the offending line.
Failing that, Richard and Amar's answers are good :-)
An uninitalized variable (pointer perhaps) could also be causing the problem. Perhaps you should run a static analysis program over your code - CppCheck isn't bad.
I'm developing a game and when I do a specific action in the game, it crashes.
So I went debugging and I saw my application crashed at simple C++ statements like if, return, ... Each time when I re-run, it crashes randomly at one of 3 lines and it never succeeds.
line 1:
if (dynamic) { ... } // dynamic is a bool member of my class
line 2:
return m_Fixture; // a line of the Box2D physical engine. m_Fixture is a pointer.
line 3:
return m_Density; // The body of a simple getter for an integer.
I get no errors from the app nor the OS...
Are there hints, tips or tricks to debug more efficient and get known what is going on?
That's why I love Java...
Thanks
Random crashes like this are usually caused by stack corruption, since these are branching instructions and thus are sensitive to the condition of the stack. These are somewhat hard to track down, but you should run valgrind and examine the call stack on each crash to try and identify common functions that might be the root cause of the error.
Are there hints, tips or tricks to debug more efficient and get known what is going on?
Run game in debugger, on the point of crash, check values of all arguments. Either using visual studio watch window or using gdb. Using "call stack" check parent routines, try to think what could go wrong.
In suspicious(potentially related to crash) routines, consider dumping all arguments to stderr (if you're using libsdl or on *nixlike systems), or write a logfile, or send dupilcates of all error messages using (on Windows) OutputDebugString. This will make them visible in "output" window in visual studio or debugger. You can also write "traces" (log("function %s was called", __FUNCTION__))
If you can't debug immediately, produce core dumps on crash. On windows it can be done using MiniDumpWriteDump, on linux it is set somewhere in configuration variables. core dumps can be handled by debugger. I'm not sure if VS express can deal with them on Windows, but you still can debug them using WinDBG.
if crash happens within class, check *this argument. It could be invalid or zero.
If the bug is truly evil (elusive stack corruption in multithreaded app that leads to delayed crash), write custom memory manager, that will override new/delete, provide alternative to malloc(if your app for some reason uses it, which may be possible), AND that locks all unused memory memory using VirtualProtect (windows) or OS-specific alternative. In this case all potentially dangerous operation will crash app instantly, which will allow you to debug the problem (if you have Just-In-Time debugger) and instantly find dangerous routine. I prefer such "custom memory manager" to boundschecker and such - since in my experience it was more useful. As an alternative you could try to use valgrind, which is available on linux only. Note, that if your app very frequently allocates memory, you'll need a large amount of RAM in order to be able to lock every unused memory block (because in order to be locked, block should be PAGE_SIZE bytes big).
In areas where you need sanity check either use ASSERT, or (IMO better solution) write a routine that will crash the application (by throwing an std::exception with a meaningful message) if some condition isn't met.
If you've identified a problematic routine, walk through it using debugger's step into/step over. Watch the arguments.
If you've identified a problematic routine, but can't directly debug it for whatever reason, after every statement within that routine, dump all variables into stderr or logfile (fprintf or iostreams - your choice). Then analyze outputs and think how it could have happened. Make sure to flush logfile after every write, or you might miss the data right before the crash.
In general you should be happy that app crashes somewhere. Crash means a bug you can quickly find using debugger and exterminate. Bugs that don't crash the program are much more difficult (example of truly complex bug: given 100000 values of input, after few hundreds of manipulations with values, among thousands of outputs, app produces 1 absolutely incorrect result, which shouldn't have happened at all)
That's why I love Java...
Excuse me, if you can't deal with language, it is entirely your fault. If you can't handle the tool, either pick another one or improve your skill. It is possible to make game in java, by the way.
These are mostly due to stack corruption, but heap corruption can also affect programs in this way.
stack corruption occurs most of the time because of "off by one errors".
heap corruption occurs because of new/delete not being handled carefully, like double delete.
Basically what happens is that the overflow/corruption overwrites an important instruction, then much much later on, when you try to execute the instruction, it will crash.
I generally like to take a second to step back and think through the code, trying to catch any logic errors.
You might try commenting out different parts of the code and seeing if it affects how the program is compiled.
Besides those two things you could try using a debugger like Visual Studio or Eclipse etc...
Lastly you could try to post your code and the error you are getting on a website with a community that knows programming and could help you work through the error (read: stackoverflow)
Crashes / Seg faults usually happen when you access a memory location that it is not allowed to access, or you attempt to access a memory location in a way that is not allowed (for example, attempting to write to a read-only location).
There are many memory analyzer tools, for example I use Valgrind which is really great in telling what the issue is (not only the line number, but also what's causing the crash).
There are no simple C++ statements. An if is only as simple as the condition you evaluate. A return is only as simple as the expression you return.
You should use a debugger and/or post some of the crashing code. Can't be of much use with "my app crashed" as information.
I had problems like this before. I was trying to refresh the GUI from different threads.
If the if statements involve dereferencing pointers, you're almost certainly corrupting the stack (this explains why an innocent return 0 would crash...)
This can happen, for instance, by going out of bounds in an array (you should be using std::vector!), trying to strcpy a char[]-based string missing the ending '\0' (you should be using std::string!), passing a bad size to memcpy (you should be using copy-constructors!), etc.
Try to figure out a way to reproduce it reliably, then place a watch on the corrupted pointer. Run through the code line-by-line until you find the very line that corrupts the pointer.
Look at the disassembly. Almost any C/C++ debugger will be happy to show you the machine code and the registers where the program crashed. The registers include the Instruction Pointer (EIP or RIP on x86/x64) which is where the program was when it stopped. The other registers usually have memory addresses or data. If the memory address is 0 or a bad pointer, there is your problem.
Then you just have to work backward to find out how it got that way. Hardware breakpoints on memory changes are very helpful here.
On a Linux/BSD/Mac, using GDB's scripting features can help a lot here. You can script things so that after the breakpoint is hit 20 times it enables a hardware watch on the address of array element 17. Etc.
You can also write debugging into your program. Use the assert() function. Everywhere!
Use assert to check the arguments to every function. Use assert to check the state of every object before you exit the function. In a game, assert that the player is on the map, that the player has health between 0 and 100, assert everything that you can think of. For complicated objects write verify() or validate() functions into the object itself that checks everything about it and then call those from an assert().
Another way to write in debugging is to have the program use signal() in Linux or asm int 3 in Windows to break into the debugger from the program. Then you can write temporary code into the program to check if it is on iteration 1117321 of the main loop. That can be useful if the bug always happens at 1117322. The program will execute much faster this way than to use a debugger breakpoint.
some tips :
- run your application under a debugger, with the symbol files (PDB) together.
- How to set Visual Studio as the default post-mortem debugger?
- set default debugger for WinDbg Just-in-time Debugging
- check memory allocations Overriding new and delete, and Overriding malloc and free
One other trick: turn off code optimization and see if the crash points make more sense. Optimization is allowed to float little bits of your code to surprising places; mapping that back to source code lines can be less than perfect.
Check pointers. At a guess, you're dereferencing a null pointer.
I've found 'random' crashes when there are some reference to a deleted object. As the memory is not necessarily overwritten, in many cases you don't notice it and the program works correctly, and than crashes after the memory was updated and is not valid anymore.
JUST FOR DEBUGGING PURPOSES, try commenting out some suspicious 'deletes'. Then, if it doesn't crash anymore, there you are.
use the GNU Debugger
Refactoring.
Scan all the code, make it clearer if not clear at first read, try to understand what you wrote and immediately fix what seems incorrect.
You'll certainly discover the problem(s) this way and fix a lot of other problems too.
I've got a "Schroedinger's Cat" type of problem here -- my program (actually the test suite for my program, but a program nonetheless) is crashing, but only when built in release mode, and only when launched from the command line. Through caveman debugging (ie, nasty printf() messages all over the place), I have determined the test method where the code is crashing, though unfortunately the actual crash seems to happen in some destructor, since the last trace messages I see are in other destructors which execute cleanly.
When I attempt to run this program inside of Visual Studio, it doesn't crash. Same goes when launching from WinDbg.exe. The crash only occurs when launching from the command line. This is happening under Windows Vista, btw, and unfortunately I don't have access to an XP machine right now to test on.
It would be really nice if I could get Windows to print out a stack trace, or something other than simply terminating the program as if it had exited cleanly. Does anyone have any advice as to how I could get some more meaningful information here and hopefully fix this bug?
Edit: The problem was indeed caused by an out-of-bounds array, which I describe more in this post. Thanks everybody for your help in finding this problem!
In 100% of the cases I've seen or heard of, where a C or C++ program runs fine in the debugger but fails when run outside, the cause has been writing past the end of a function local array. (The debugger puts more on the stack, so you're less likely to overwrite something important.)
When I have encountered problems like this before it has generally been due to variable initialization. In debug mode, variables and pointers get initialized to zero automatically but in release mode they do not. Therefore, if you have code like this
int* p;
....
if (p == 0) { // do stuff }
In debug mode the code in the if is not executed but in release mode p contains an undefined value, which is unlikely to be 0, so the code is executed often causing a crash.
I would check your code for uninitialized variables. This can also apply to the contents of arrays.
No answer so far has tried to give a serious overview about the available techniques for debugging release applications:
Release and Debug builds behave differently for many reasons. Here is an excellent overview. Each of these differences might cause a bug in the Release build that doesn't exist in the Debug build.
The presence of a debugger may change the behavior of a program too, both for release and debug builds. See this answer. In short, at least the Visual Studio Debugger uses the Debug Heap automatically when attached to a program. You can turn the debug heap off by using environment variable _NO_DEBUG_HEAP . You can specify this either in your computer properties, or in the Project Settings in Visual Studio. That might make the crash reproducible with the debugger attached.
More on debugging heap corruption here.
If the previous solution doesn't work, you need to catch the unhandled exception and attach a post-mortem debugger the instance the crash occurs. You can use e.g. WinDbg for this, details about the avaiable post-mortem debuggers and their installation at MSDN
You can improve your exception handling code and if this is a production application, you should:
a. Install a custom termination handler using std::set_terminate
If you want to debug this problem locally, you could run an endless loop inside the termination handler and output some text to the console to notify you that std::terminate has been called. Then attach the debugger and check the call stack. Or you print the stack trace as described in this answer.
In a production application you might want to send an error report back home, ideally together with a small memory dump that allows you to analyze the problem as described here.
b. Use Microsoft's structured exception handling mechanism that allows you to catch both hardware and software exceptions. See MSDN. You could guard parts of your code using SEH and use the same approach as in a) to debug the problem. SEH gives more information about the exception that occurred that you could use when sending an error report from a production app.
Things to look out for:
Array overruns - the visual studio debugger inserts padding which may stop crashes.
Race conditions - do you have multiple threads involved if so a race condition many only show up when an application is executed directly.
Linking - is your release build pulling in the correct libraries.
Things to try:
Minidump - really easy to use (just look it up in msdn) will give you a full crash dump for each thread. You just load the output into visual studio and it is as if you were debugging at the time of the crash.
You can set WinDbg as your postmortem debugger. This will launch the debugger and attach it to the process when the crash occurs. To install WinDbg for postmortem debugging, use the /I option (note it is capitalized):
windbg /I
More details here.
As to the cause, it's most probably an unitialized variable as the other answers suggest.
After many hours of debugging, I finally found the cause of the problem, which was indeed caused by a buffer overflow, caused a single byte difference:
char *end = static_cast<char*>(attr->data) + attr->dataSize;
This is a fencepost error (off-by-one error) and was fixed by:
char *end = static_cast<char*>(attr->data) + attr->dataSize - 1;
The weird thing was, I put several calls to _CrtCheckMemory() around various parts of my code, and they always returned 1. I was able to find the source of the problem by placing "return false;" calls in the test case, and then eventually determining through trial-and-error where the fault was.
Thanks everybody for your comments -- I learned a lot about windbg.exe today! :)
Even though you have built your exe as a release one, you can still generate PDB (Program database) files that will allow you to stack trace, and do a limited amount of variable inspection.
In your build settings there is an option to create the PDB files. Turn this on and relink. Then try running from the IDE first to see if you get the crash. If so, then great - you're all set to look at things. If not, then when running from the command line you can do one of two things:
Run EXE, and before the crash do an Attach To Process (Tools menu on Visual Studio).
After the crash, select the option to launch debugger.
When asked to point to PDB files, browse to find them. If the PDB's were put in the same output folder as your EXE or DLL's they will probably be picked up automatically.
The PDB's provide a link to the source with enough symbol information to make it possible to see stack traces, variables etc. You can inspect the values as normal, but do be aware that you can get false readings as the optimisation pass may mean things only appear in registers, or things happen in a different order than you expect.
NB: I'm assuming a Windows/Visual Studio environment here.
Crashes like this are almost always caused because an IDE will usually set the contents of uninitialized variable to zeros, null or some other such 'sensible' value, whereas when running natively you'll get whatever random rubbish that the system picks up.
Your error is therefore almost certainly that you are using something like you are using a pointer before it has been properly initialized and you're getting away with it in the IDE because it doesn't point anywhere dangerous - or the value is handled by your error checking - but in release mode it does something nasty.
In order to have a crash dump that you can analyze:
Generate pdb files for your code.
You rebase to have your exe and dlls loaded in the same address.
Enable post mortem debugger such as Dr. Watson
Check the crash failures address using a tool such as crash finder.
You should also check out the tools in Debugging tools for windows.
You can monitor the application and see all the first chance exceptions that were prior to your second chance exception.
Hope it helps...
Sometimes this happens because you have wrapped important operation inside "assert" macro. As you may know, "assert" evaluates expressions only on debug mode.
A great way to debug an error like this is to enable optimizations for your debug build.
Once i had a problem when app behaved similarily to yours. It turned out to be a nasty buffer overrun in sprintf. Naturally, it worked when run with a debugger attached. What i did, was to install an unhandled exception filter (SetUnhandledExceptionFilter) in which i simply blocked infinitely (using WaitForSingleObject on a bogus handle with a timeout value of INFINITE).
So you could something along the lines of:
long __stdcall MyFilter(EXCEPTION_POINTERS *)
{
HANDLE hEvt=::CreateEventW(0,1,0,0);
if(hEvt)
{
if(WAIT_FAILED==::WaitForSingleObject(hEvt, INFINITE))
{
//log failure
}
}
}
// somewhere in your wmain/WinMain:
SetUnhandledExceptionFilter(MyFilter);
I then attached the debugger after the bug had manifested itself (gui program stopped responding).
Then you can either take a dump and work with it later:
.dump /ma path_to_dump_file
Or debug it right away. The simplest way is to track where processor context has been saved by the runtime exception handling machinery:
s-d esp Range 1003f
Command will search stack address space for CONTEXT record(s) provided the length of search. I usually use something like 'l?10000'. Note, do not use unsually large numbers as the record you're after usually near to the unhanded exception filter frame.
1003f is the combination of flags (i believe it corresponds to CONTEXT_FULL) used to capture the processor state.
Your search would look similar to this:
0:000> s-d esp l1000 1003f
0012c160 0001003f 00000000 00000000 00000000 ?...............
Once you get results back, use the address in the cxr command:
.cxr 0012c160
This will take you to this new CONTEXT, exactly at the time of crash (you will get exactly the stack trace at the time your app crashed).
Additionally, use:
.exr -1
to find out exactly which exception had occurred.
Hope it helps.
With regard to your problems getting diagnostic information, have you tried using adplus.vbs as an alternative to WinDbg.exe? To attach to a running process, use
adplus.vbs -crash -p <process_id>
Or to start the application in the event that the crash happens quickly:
adplus.vbs -crash -sc your_app.exe
Full info on adplus.vbs can be found at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/286350
Ntdll.dll with debugger attached
One little know difference between launching a program from the IDE or WinDbg as opposed to launching it from command line / desktop is that when launching with a debugger attached (i.e. IDE or WinDbg) ntdll.dll uses a different heap implementation which performs some little validation on the memory allocation/freeing.
You may read some relevant information in unexpected user breakpoint in ntdll.dll. One tool which might be able to help you identifying the problem is PageHeap.exe.
Crash analysis
You did not write what is the "crash" you are experiencing. Once the program crashes and offers you to send the error information to the Microsoft, you should be able to click on the technical information and to check at least the exception code, and with some effort you can even perform post-mortem analysis (see Heisenbug: WinApi program crashes on some computers) for instructions)
Vista SP1 actually has a really nice crash dump generator built into the system. Unfortunately, it isn't turned on by default!
See this article:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb787181(VS.85).aspx
The benefit of this approach is that no extra software needs to be installed on the affected system. Grip it and rip it, baby!
As my experience, that are most being memory corruption issues.
For example :
char a[8];
memset(&a[0], 0, 16);
: /*use array a doing some thing */
it is very possible to be normal in debug mode when one runs the code.
But in release, that would/might be crash.
For me, to rummage where the memory is out of bound is too toilsome.
Use some tools like Visual Leak Detector (windows) or valgrind (linux) are more wise choise.
I've seen a lot of right answers. However, there is none that helped me. In my case, there was a wrong usage of the SSE instructions with the unaligned memory. Take a look at your math library (if you use one), and try to disable SIMD support, recompile and reproduce the crash.
Example:
A project includes mathfu, and uses the classes with STL vector: std::vector< mathfu::vec2 >. Such usage will probably cause a crash at the time of the construction of mathfu::vec2 item since the STL default allocator does not guarantee required 16-byte alignment. In this case to prove the idea, one can define #define MATHFU_COMPILE_WITHOUT_SIMD_SUPPORT 1 before each include of the mathfu, recompile in Release configuration and check again.
The Debug and RelWithDebInfo configurations worked well for my project, but not the Release one. The reason behind this behavior is probably because debugger processes allocation/deallocation requests and does some memory bookkeeping to check and verify the accesses to the memory.
I experienced the situation in Visual Studio 2015 and 2017 environments.
Something similar happend to me once with GCC. It turned out to be a too aggressive optimization that was enabled only when creating the final release and not during the development process.
Well, to tell the truth it was my fault, not gcc's, as I didn't noticed that my code was relying on the fact that that particular optimization wouldn't have been done.
It took me a lot of time to trace it and I only came to it because I asked on a newsgroup and somebody made me think about it. So, let me return the favour just in case this is happening to you as well.
I've found this this article useful for your scenario. ISTR the compiler options were a little out of date. Look around your Visual Studio project options to see how to generate pdb files for your release build, etc.
It's suspicious that it would happen outside the debugger and not inside; running in the debugger does not normally change the application behavior. I would check the environment differences between the console and the IDE. Also, obviously, compile release without optimizations and with debug information, and see if that affects the behavior. Finally, check out the post-mortem debugging tools other people have suggested here, usually you can get some clue from them.
Debugging release builds can be a pain due to optimizations changing the order in which lines of your code appear to be executed. It can really get confusing!
One technique to at least narrow down the problem is to use MessageBox() to display quick statements stating what part of the program your code has got to ("Starting Foo()", "Starting Foo2()"); start putting them at the top of functions in the area of your code that you suspect (what were you doing at the time when it crashed?). When you can tell which function, change the message boxes to blocks of code or even individual lines within that function until you narrow it down to a few lines. Then you can start printing out the value of variables to see what state they are in at the point of crashing.
Try using _CrtCheckMemory() to see what state the allocated memory is in .
If everything goes well , _CrtCheckMemory returns TRUE , else FALSE .
You might run your software with Global Flags enabled (Look in Debugging Tools for Windows). It will very often help to nail the problem.
Make your program generate a mini dump when the exception occurs, then open it up in a debugger (for example, in WinDbg). The key functions to look at: MiniDumpWriteDump, SetUnhandledExceptionFilter
Here's a case I had that somebody might find instructive. It only crashed in release in Qt Creator - not in debug. I was using .ini files (as I prefer apps that can be copied to other drives, vs. ones that lose their settings if the Registry gets corrupted). This applies to any apps that store their settings under the apps' directory tree. If the debug and release builds are under different directories, you can have a setting that's different between them, too. I had preference checked in one that wasn't checked in the other. It turned out to be the source of my crash. Good thing I found it.
I hate to say it, but I only diagnosed the crash in MS Visual Studio Community Edition; after having VS installed, letting my app crash in Qt Creator, and choosing to open it in Visual Studio's debugger. While my Qt app had no symbol info, it turns out that the Qt libraries had some. It led me to the offending line; since I could see what method was being called. (Still, I think Qt is a convenient, powerful, & cross-platform LGPL framework.)
I had this problem too. In my case, the RELEASE mode was having msvscrtd.dll in the linker definition. We removed it and the issue resolved.
Alternatively, adding /NODEFAULTLIB to the linker command line arguments also resolved the issue.
I'll add another possibility for future readers: Check if you're logging to stderr or stdout from an application with no console window (ie you linked with /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS). This can crash.
I had a GUI application where I logged to both stderr and a file in both debug and release, so logging was always enabled. I created a console window in debug for easy viewing of the logs, but not in release. However, if the VS debugger is attached to the release build, it'll automatically pipe stderr to the VS output window. So only in release with no debugger did it actually crash when I wrote to stderr.
To make things worse, printf debugging obviously didn't work, which I didn't understand why until I'd tracked down the root cause (by painfully bisecting the codebase by inserting an infinite loop in various spots).
I had this error and vs crashed even when trying to !clean! my project. So I deleted the obj files manually from the Release directory, and after that it built just fine.
I agree with Rolf. Because reproducibility is so important, you shouldn't have a non-debug mode. All your builds should be debuggable. Having two targets to debug more than doubles your debugging load. Just ship the "debug mode" version, unless it is unusable. In which case, make it usable.
Please help! I'm really at my wits' end.
My program is a little personal notes manager (google for "cintanotes").
On some computers (and of course I own none of them) it crashes with an unhandled exception just after start.
Nothing special about these computers could be said, except that they tend to have AMD CPUs.
Environment: Windows XP, Visual C++ 2005/2008, raw WinApi.
Here is what is certain about this "Heisenbug":
1) The crash happens only in the Release version.
2) The crash goes away as soon as I remove all GDI-related stuff.
3) BoundChecker has no complains.
4) Writing a log shows that the crash happens on a declaration of a local int variable! How could that be? Memory corruption?
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!
UPDATE: I've managed to get the app debugged on a "faulty" PC. The results:
"Unhandled exception at 0x0044a26a in CintaNotes.exe: 0xC000001D: Illegal Instruction."
and code breaks on
0044A26A cvtsi2sd xmm1,dword ptr [esp+14h]
So it seems that the problem was in the "Code Generation/Enable Enhanced Instruction Set" compiler option. It was set to "/arch:SSE2" and was crashing on the machines that didn't support SSE2. I've set this option to "Not Set" and the bug is gone. Phew!
Thank you all very much for help!!
4) Writig a log shows that the crash happen on a declaration of a local int variable! how could that be? Memory corruption?
What is the underlying code in the executable / assembly? Declaration of int is no code at all, and as such cannot crash. Do you initialize the int somehow?
To see the code where the crash happened you should perform what is called a postmortem analysis.
Windows Error Reporting
If you want to analyse the crash, you should get a crash dump. One option for this is to register for Windows Error Reporting - requires some money (you need a digital code signing ID) and some form filling. For more visit https://winqual.microsoft.com/ .
Get the crash dump intended for WER directly from the customer
Another option is to get in touch witch some user who is experiencing the crash and get a crash dump intended for WER from him directly. The user can do this when he clicks on the Technical details before sending the crash to Microsoft - the crash dump file location can be checked there.
Your own minidump
Another option is to register your own exception handler, handle the exception and write a minidump anywhere you wish. Detailed description can be found at Code Project Post-Mortem Debugging Your Application with Minidumps and Visual Studio .NET article.
So it doesnnt crash when configuration is DEBUG Configuration? There are many things different than a RELEASE configruation:
1.) Initialization of globals
2.) Actual machine Code generated etc..
So first step is find out what are exact settings for each parameter in the RELEASE mode as compared to the DEBUG mode.
-AD
1) The crash happens only in the Release version.
That's usually a sign that you're relying on some behaviour that's not guaranteed, but happens to be true in the debug build. For example, if you forget to initialize your variables, or access an array out of bounds. Make sure you've turned on all the compiler checks (/RTCsuc). Also check things like relying on the order of evaluation of function parameters (which isn't guaranteed).
2) The crash goes away as soon as I remove all GDI-related stuff.
Maybe that's a hint that you're doing something wrong with the GDI related stuff? Are you using HANDLEs after they've been freed, for example?
Download the Debugging tools for Windows package. Set the symbol paths correctly, then run your application under WinDbg. At some point, it will break with an Access Violation. Then you should run the command "!analyze -v", which is quite smart and should give you a hint on whats going wrong.
Most heisenbugs / release-only bugs are due to either flow of control that depends on reads from uninitialised memory / stale pointers / past end of buffers, or race conditions, or both.
Try overriding your allocators so they zero out memory when allocating. Does the problem go away (or become more reproducible?)
Writig a log shows that the crash happens on a declaration of a local int variable! How could that be? Memory corruption?
Stack overflow! ;)
4) Writig a log shows that the crash happen on a declaration of a local int variable!how could that be? Memory corruption
I've found the cause to numerous "strange crashes" to be dereferencing of a broken this inside a member function of said object.
What does the crash say ? Access violation ? Exception ? That would be the further clue to solve this with
Ensure you have no preceeding memory corruptions using PageHeap.exe
Ensure you have no stack overflow (CBig array[1000000])
Ensure that you have no un-initialized memory.
Further you can run the release version also inside the debugger, once you generate debug symbols (not the same as creating debug version) for the process. Step through and see if you are getting any warnings in the debugger trace window.
"4) Writing a log shows that the crash happens on a declaration of a local int variable! How could that be? Memory corruption?"
This could be a sign that the hardware is in fact faulty or being pushed too hard. Find out if they've overclocked their computer.
When I get this type of thing, i try running the code through gimpels PC-Lint (static code analysis) as it checks different classes of errors to BoundsChecker. If you are using Boundschecker, turn on the memory poisoning options.
You mention AMD CPUs. Have you investigated whether there is a similar graphics card / driver version and / or configuration in place on the machines that crash? Does it always crash on these machines or just occasionally? Maybe run the System Information tool on these machines and see what they have in common,
Sounds like stack corruption to me. My favorite tool to track those down is IDA Pro. Of course you don't have that access to the user's machine.
Some memory checkers have a hard time catching stack corruption ( if it indeed that ). The surest way to get those I think is runtime analysis.
This can also be due to corruption in an exception path, even if the exception was handled. Do you debug with 'catch first-chance exceptions' turned on? You should as long as you can. It does get annoying after a while in many cases.
Can you send those users a checked version of your application? Check out Minidump Handle that exception and write out a dump. Then use WinDbg to debug on your end.
Another method is writing very detailed logs. Create a "Log every single action" option, and ask the user to turn that on and send it too you. Dump out memory to the logs. Check out '_CrtDbgReport()' on MSDN.
Good Luck!
EDIT:
Responding to your comment: An error on a local variable declaration is not surprising to me. I've seen this a lot. It's usually due to a corrupted stack.
Some variable on the stack may be running over it's boundaries for example. All hell breaks loose after that. Then stack variable declarations throw random memory errors, virtual tables get corrupted, etc.
Anytime I've seen those for a prolong period of time, I've had to go to IDA Pro. Detailed runtime disassembly debugging is the only thing I know that really gets those reliably.
Many developers use WinDbg for this kind of analysis. That's why I also suggested Minidump.
Try Rational (IBM) PurifyPlus. It catches a lot of errors that BoundsChecker doesn't.