One strange thing took my sleep away. .
I have P7 library. It is library for writing logs.
Library contains few examples.
Example for C++ looks like:
int main(int i_iArgC, char* i_pArgV[])
{
// Some code that don't use i_iArgC or i_pArgV
}
But the trick that program handle command line arguments somehow.
I play a little bit to make sure that this main called.
What I do:
Build in debug and set breakpoint on main (to make sure that exactly
this main is called)
Changemain(int i_iArgC, char* i_pArgV[]) to main() (To make sure that no one use them)
I have no idea how it possible.
Here is minimal steps you can do to look on it by yourself:
Download P7 code from this page (link at top left)
Unzip archive
Run build.sh (It runs few makefiles in some order)
Execute Cpp_Example from Binaries folder
Execute again Cpp_Example /P7.Help to see that app react to command line arguments.
Most systems allow for getting the command line parameters without relying on main(). On Windows for example, you can use GetCommandLineW().
The library has non-portable code to do just that in Shared/Platforms/*/PProcess.h. A quick look at Windows_x86/PProcess.h shows that it uses GetCommandLineW() and the same file in Linux_x86/ reads /proc/self/cmdline.
Related
What I'd like to do is have my C++ code open up Mplus (statistical program that I've downloaded on my computer) and run it. Is it possible?
You may be able to do what you want with std::system() calls like:
std::system("program -e input_commands.txt"); // Assuming it accepts some sort of command line args
std::system("program < input_commands.txt"); // Assuming it responds to stdin
It depends on the program if this approach will work.
The go test command has support for the -c flag, described as follows:
-c Compile the test binary to pkg.test but do not run it.
(Where pkg is the last element of the package's import path.)
As far as I understand, generating a binary like this is the way to run it interactively using GDB. However, since the test binary is created by combining the source and test files temporarily in some /tmp/ directory, this is what happens when I run list in gdb:
Loading Go Runtime support.
(gdb) list
42 github.com/<username>/<project>/_test/_testmain.go: No such file or directory.
This means I cannot happily inspect the Go source code in GDB like I'm used to. I know it is possible to force the temporary directory to stay by passing the -work flag to the go test command, but then it is still a huge hassle since the binary is not created in that directory and such. I was wondering if anyone found a clean solution to this problem.
Go 1.5 has been released, and there is still no officially sanctioned Go debugger. I haven't had much success using GDB for effectively debugging Go programs or test binaries. However, I have had success using Delve, a non-official debugger that is still undergoing development: https://github.com/derekparker/delve
To run your test code in the debugger, simply install delve:
go get -u github.com/derekparker/delve/cmd/dlv
... and then start the tests in the debugger from within your workspace:
dlv test
From the debugger prompt, you can single-step, set breakpoints, etc.
Give it a whirl!
Unfortunately, this appears to be a known issue that's not going to be fixed. See this discussion:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/nIA09gp3eNU
I've seen two solutions to this problem.
1) create a .gdbinit file with a set substitute-path command to
redirect gdb to the actual location of the source. This file could be
generated by the go tool but you'd risk overwriting someone's custom
.gdbinit file and would tie the go tool to gdb which seems like a bad
idea.
2) Replace the source file paths in the executable (which are pointing
to /tmp/...) with the location they reside on disk. This is
straightforward if the real path is shorter then the /tmp/... path.
This would likely require additional support from the compiler /
linker to make this solution more generic.
It spawned this issue on the Go Google Code issue tracker, to which the decision ended up being:
https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=2881
This is annoying, but it is the least of many annoying possibilities.
As a rule, the go tool should not be scribbling in the source
directories, which might not even be writable, and it shouldn't be
leaving files elsewhere after it exits. There is next to nothing
interesting in _testmain.go. People testing with gdb can break on
testing.Main instead.
Russ
Status: Unfortunate
So, in short, it sucks, and while you can work around it and GDB a test executable, the development team is unlikely to make it as easy as it could be for you.
I'm still new to the golang game but for what it's worth basic debugging seems to work.
The list command you're trying to work can be used so long as you're already at a breakpoint somewhere in your code. For example:
(gdb) b aws.go:54
Breakpoint 1 at 0x61841: file /Users/mat/gocode/src/github.com/stellar/deliverator/aws/aws.go, line 54.
(gdb) r
Starting program: /Users/mat/gocode/src/github.com/stellar/deliverator/aws/aws.test
[snip: some arnings about BinaryCache]
Breakpoint 1, github.com/stellar/deliverator/aws.imageIsNewer (latest=0xc2081fe2d0, ami=0xc2081fe3c0, ~r2=false)
at /Users/mat/gocode/src/github.com/stellar/deliverator/aws/aws.go:54
54 layout := "2006-01-02T15:04:05.000Z"
(gdb) list
49 func imageIsNewer(latest *ec2.Image, ami *ec2.Image) bool {
50 if latest == nil {
51 return true
52 }
53
54 layout := "2006-01-02T15:04:05.000Z"
55
56 amiCreationTime, amiErr := time.Parse(layout, *ami.CreationDate)
57 if amiErr != nil {
58 panic(amiErr)
This is just after running the following in the aws subdir of my project:
go test -c
gdb aws.test
As an additional caveat, it does seem very selective about where breakpoints can be placed. Seems like it has to be an expression but that conclusion is only via experimentation.
If you're willing to use tools besides GDB, check out godebug. To use it, first install with:
go get github.com/mailgun/godebug
Next, insert a breakpoint somewhere by adding the following statement to your code:
_ = "breakpoint"
Now run your tests with the godebug test command.
godebug test
It supports many of the parameters from the go test command.
-test.bench string
regular expression per path component to select benchmarks to run
-test.benchmem
print memory allocations for benchmarks
-test.benchtime duration
approximate run time for each benchmark (default 1s)
-test.blockprofile string
write a goroutine blocking profile to the named file after execution
-test.blockprofilerate int
if >= 0, calls runtime.SetBlockProfileRate() (default 1)
-test.count n
run tests and benchmarks n times (default 1)
-test.coverprofile string
write a coverage profile to the named file after execution
-test.cpu string
comma-separated list of number of CPUs to use for each test
-test.cpuprofile string
write a cpu profile to the named file during execution
-test.memprofile string
write a memory profile to the named file after execution
-test.memprofilerate int
if >=0, sets runtime.MemProfileRate
-test.outputdir string
directory in which to write profiles
-test.parallel int
maximum test parallelism (default 4)
-test.run string
regular expression to select tests and examples to run
-test.short
run smaller test suite to save time
-test.timeout duration
if positive, sets an aggregate time limit for all tests
-test.trace string
write an execution trace to the named file after execution
-test.v
verbose: print additional output
I am writing a program for Windows that eventually has to launch a different pre-existing .exe that sits on the same computer. It passes multiple parameters to this .exe file. I am reading the actual command and parameters and constructing the command but I also tried hard coding it with the same results. Here's the hard coded version (I picked this out of an older C program that uses the same.exe):
system("c://IQapture//dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c://IQapture//mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0");
So in the original program inside int _cdecl main(int argc, char**argv) this use of system works. In my C++ program inside a C++ class method when I issue the command the correct program launches but it immediately puts up an error dialog stating that an error has occurred. I echo'd the system string used to launch the exe out to the console. Right after it fails, I copy and paste the same line that was echo'd and this time the exe runs without error. This is repeatable. In case it was timing related I tried adding a 10 second delay before issuing the system command but it didn't matter. Plus the original older program doesn't require a delay. This implies to me that the string is correct and the target program works. Somehow the system() invocation is different from a direct command line invocation. The program compiles and builds fine. I'm using Visual Studio 2010.
Does anyone have ideas on how to make the system() invocation work like the command line invocation?
That really doesn't look like the kind of thing that Windows would be happy with... Try it with backslashes instead:
system("c:\\IQapture\\dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:\\IQapture\\mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0");
If that still doesn't work, you quite likely have one of the following issues:
Your current working directory is wrong;
An environment variable is missing;
Your program is running with the wrong user permissions;
Your program is tying up a resource that the spawned process requires (eg you have not closed a file that it requires as input).
There are a lot of things to consider - the environment, the user running the program, the parent process and what's inherited... Take a look at the parameters to the CreateProcess function. Chances are your system call's invocation isn't matching the command line's (though that may not be the issue, simpler things are more likely.)
I'd advise working backwards from the error to rule out simple causes such as the environment, current directory, etc. before delving into such things as creation flags and security attributes.
You have your slashes backwards. Try:
system("c:/IQapture/dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:/IQapture/mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0");
You can use the backslash \ but because that is an escape sequence starter in a string (for C/C++) that is why you use two in a row. As the compiler will convert \\ into a single slahs in the string:
Thus:
system("c:\\IQapture\\dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:\\IQapture\\mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0");
// Is equivelent to the command line string:
> c:\IQapture\dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:\IQapture\mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0
But Windows has supported both types of slashes for longer than I can remember. So the following command line is equivalent.
> c:/IQapture/dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:/IQapture/mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0
Using '/' in a string (in C/C++) does not require escaping. So you just need to use it as is:
system("c:/IQapture/dmon2_6_IHD -p2 c:/IQapture/mon_table_101_Tx8.txt 11 0 0");
I have a C++ program which is mainly used for video processing. Inside the program, I am launching the system command in order to obtain pass the processed videos to some other binaries to postprocess them.
I have a while loop towards infinite and I am launching the system command inside the loop every time. The thing is that at a certain point I am receiving the -1 return code from the system command. What could be the reason for that?
Inside the system command I am just calling a binary file with the adequate parameters from the main project.
The system command which I want to execute is actually a shell file.
In this file I am extracting the main feature from the video and passing them through a SVM model from a 3D party library in order to obtain the the desired classification.
./LiveGestureKernel ./Video ./SvmVideo
./mat4libsvm31 -l SvmVideoLabels < SvmVideo > temp_test_file
./svm-predict temp_test_file svm_model temp_output_file
cat < temp_output_file
rm -f temp_*
After a certain number of iterations through the while loop, it just won't execute the script file and I cannot figure out the reason for this. Thanks!
If you get -1 from the call to system(), you should first examine the contents of errno - that will most likely tell you what your specific problem is.
The one thing to watch out for is that the return value from system is an implementation-defined one in the case where you pass it a non-NULL command, so it's possible that -1 may be coming from your actual executable.
Your best bet in that case is to print out (or otherwise log) the command being executed on failure (and possibly all the time), so that you can check what happens with the same arguments when you execute it directly from a command line or shell.
I want to give TDD a try and I've chosen the UnitTest++ framework, but the documentations is almost non-existent (to my knowledge).
My concern is this: in all the tutorials I've seen, they put UnitTest::RunAllTests() in the main() function. I'm guessing they do it only to simplify the explanation, but I wouldn't want that with my software. Where should I put UnitTest::RunAllTests() so that I can have it executed every time I build the software but not when I run it?
UnitTest::RunAllTests() should be put into the main function of a separate program, which you compile and run as part of your build process.
One thing we've done in the past is to add a command line argument which makes the main executable run all the tests and then exit. It's fairly easy to arrange some #ifdefs such that this code gets compiled out on release builds. Something like this (it's not very C++ but if you weren't parsing command line arguments already this is the simplest way to do it):
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
#ifdef DEBUG
if (argc > 1 && !strcmp(argv[2], "-t"))
{
return UnitTest::RunAllTests();
}
#endif
[rest of program]
}