Sometimes, when I press ctrl+F10 at line A, I just want the program to resume and halt when reach line A. However, if it reaches a breakpoint before reaches line A, it will halt at that breakpoint instead.
Is there any hotkey that acts similar to ctrl+F10, but ignores all breakpoints?
Disabling all breakpoints is not a viable choice for me, because :-
I just want one-time skip. Disabling them all and enabling back in the same debug session is not so convenient.
Disable breakpoints may also disrupt some of my workflow, because I reserved them to be used in some special cases.
ctrl+shift+F10 is not useful either, because it alters the program's behavior.
I don't mind to install a new plug-in.
Appendix :-
ctrl+F10 = Starts or resumes execution of your code and then halts execution when it reaches the selected statement. (but if it reach a breakpoint, it will halt immediately)
ctrl+shift+F10 = Sets the execution point to the line of code you choose
No direct answer for it, it would hit the breakpoint during debugging mode, it can't skip the breakpoint.
Actually I also check the VS2017 RC, it has the new feature called "Run to Click", you could run your app to the specific line during debugging mode. But it also hit the breakpoint during running time, but you could ignore this action and just click "Run execution to here" again. I know that it is not the direct answer, but I think it is convenient for you to debug your app to the specific line.
Other community members also submitted a feature request which could skip over the breakpoint here:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-ide/suggestions/2221315-implement-a-new-skip-over-breakpoint-type
A extension tool:
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=CodeMelee.CodeMelee-FlexPoints
Which could skip/replace the specific code line, maybe it is also a workaround for this issue.
Since no direct solution for it, I also help you submit a feature request here:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-ide/suggestions/17545741-visual-studio-hotkey-similar-to-ctrl-f10-but-als
You could also vote it:)
Related
So, I have a simple project with one Program (user-writen code) and then one Add-Inn (custom task) (it is very useful System Command executor add-inn, about you can read here)
So, when I get some condition in Program step, I want to stop my Project. I could stop Program, for example, using
ENDSAS
or
Abort abend
but, even if Program immediately stops (with error message in log), Add-Inn is execute! How disable executing of Add-Inn on condition (on error or any other)?
Thanks
P.S. Project will be execute in batch mode
If you're using an EG process flow, as you presumably are, then you need to set up a condition to run the add-in task.
Right click on your one program, select 'condition', add. Let's say you have a macro variable that is set to 0 if you have no problems or (some value) if you have a problem. (Could also use any of the automatic SYSERR type macro variables.)
Then, put your add-in task under "Then, run this task". You can add an Else or Else If if you want, or just leave that as None.
Then, EG won't run your task unless the macro variable is successful.
I'm currently debugging syslinux (a boot loader) through the gdb stub of qemu.
Recently, I wrote some gdb commands that (un)load the debug symbols everytime a module is dynamically (un)loaded. In order not to disrupt the execution, I ended the commands with continue.
break com32/lib/sys/module/elf_module.c:282
commands
silent
python
name = gdb.parse_and_eval("module->name").string()
addr = int(str(gdb.parse_and_eval("module->base_addr")), 0)
gdb.execute("load-syslinux-module %s 0x%08x" % (name, addr))
end
continue
end
However, when stepping through the code line by line, if the next or step command makes the execution hit the breakpoint, the breakpoints takes precedence, the commands are executed, including the continue. And the execution continue irrespectively of the line-by-line debugging I was doign. This also happen if I try to step over the function that has this breakpoint.
How can I keep (un)loading the debug symbols on the fly while not interfering with the debugging?
Is there an alternative to the continue command? Maybe using breakpoints isn't the right way? I'd take any solution.
This can't be done from the gdb CLI. However, it is easy to do from Python.
In Python the simplest way is to define one's own gdb.Breakpoint subclass, and define the stop method on it. This method can do the work you like, then return False to tell gdb to continue.
The stop facility was designed to avoid the problems with cont in commands. See the documentation for more details.
OK, so there are numerous questions around, asking for a "Visual Studio equivalent on Linux" or a variation of this question. (here, here, here, ...)
I would like to focus on one aspect and ask how the debugging workflow possibly differs on different systems, specifically the full-integrated-IDE approach used by Visual Studio (like) systems and a possibly more "separate" toolchain oriented approach.
To this end, let me present what I consider a short description of the "Visual Studio Debugging Workflow":
Given an existing project
I open up the project (one single step from a user perspective)
I navigate to the code I want to debug (possibly by searching of my project files, which is simply done by opening the Find in Files dialog box.)
I put a breakpoint at line (a), simply by putting the cursor on the line and hitting F9
I put a "tracepoint" at line (b), by adding a breakpoint there and then changing the breakpoint properties so that the debugger doesn't stop, but instead traces the value of a local variable.
I hit F5, which automatically compiles my executable, starts it under the debugger and then I wait until the prg stops at (a), meanwhile monitoring the trace window for output of (b)
When the debugger finally stops at (a), my screen automatically shows me the following information in (one-time preconfigured windows) side-by-side at the same time:
Current call stack
values of the most recently changed local variables
loaded modules (DLLs)
a list of all active breakpoints with their locations
a watch window with the last watch expressions I entered
A memory window to examine raw memory contents
a small window displaying current register values
Plus/minus some features, this is what I would expect under Eclipse/CDT under Linux also.
How would this workflow and presented information be retrieved when developing with VIM, Emacs, gdb/DDD and the likes?
This question isn't really about if some tool has one feature or not, it's about seeing that development/debugging work is using a combination of features and having a multitude of options available at your fingertips and how you access this information when not using a fully integrated IDE.
I think your answer isn't just about which software you use, but also what methodology you use. I use Emacs and depends on TDD for most of my debugging. When I see something fail, I usually write tests filling in the gap which I (obviously) have missed, and checks every expectation that way. So it goes far between each time I use the debugger.
When I do run into problems I have several options. In some cases I use valgrind first, it can tell me if there is some memory related problems right away, eliminating the need for the debugger. It will point straight to the line where i overwrite or delete memory that should be left alone. If I suspect a race condition valgrind is pretty good at that to.
When I use the debugger I often use it right in emacs, through GUD mode. It will give me a view with stack, local variables, the source code, breakpoints and a window where I can command the debugger. It usually involves setting a couple of breakpoints, watching some memory or some evaluation, and stepping through the code. It is pretty much like using the debugger in an IDE. The GDB debugger is a powerful beast, but my problems has never been large enough to need to invoke its power.
After compiling console programs the console window closes immediately after running. What is the best practice for keeping it open? I've searched google loads, I'm used to codeblocks where you don't have to worry about it, but, I want to mess around with Visual Studio a bit and with VS, my console closes. All over the interwebz there are several different ways to keep it open, however, I've read that most of them are bad coding techniques. What is everyones preferred method?
When I'm using Visual Studio and I don't need debugging I just run it using Ctrl+F5 keystroke – and it prevents console from closing.
Since you always run in the debugger, set a breakpoint on the return statement from main().
The debugger is your best friend, learn (and learn early) to use it to your advantage at every opportunity.
Run your program in a console, which would be the expected way of running a console program ...
Alternatively, you can make a little batch file to execute your program that would have:
REM batch file to launch program
yourprogram.exe
PAUSE
and the PAUSE cmd.exe command will ask to user to press any key.
I tend to use system("PAUSE"); which gives you a
Press any key to continue . . .
message.
cin is grossly inelegant but easy for the forgetful to derive:
{
char c;
std::cin >> c;
}
That holds the window open until you type a character /* edit */ and hit enter.
std::cin.get() will close the window the moment you type a character, which, depending on how easily you become habituated, runs a marginally greater risk of "whoops, I wish I hadn't closed that!" than the two-keystroke operator>>(istream &).
Both differ from a system("pause") in that they return in a program-accessible way the value of the character you typed, so, if as not infrequently happens, one kludge leads to another, you can write a switch statement based on what you typed to (for example) exit immediately, write some values to a log, run it again, etc.
I use:
cin.get()
I heard it was less costly than system("PAUSE") and it works on POSIX systems too.
There's a great link that goes into detail about this.
Resist the temptation to do anything. Well behaved command line programs exit when they've finished running reporting a status via their exit code. This enables them to be scriptable and 'good citizens' in automated environments. Even in an interactive environment, why force the user to make an extra key press just because of your debugging environment?
If you run, rather than debug then Visual Studio will open a console windows that pauses after your application exits so that you can still view the output. I don't know why the behaviour is different when you debug, perhaps because you have breakpoints available so if you want to see the output at various stages you can place breakpoints after the relevant output statements, or at the end of main or enable various 'stop on exception throw' options.
Whatever the reason, I've never felt compelled to compromise the behaviour of my application just to enhance my debugging experience.
A very common one is to just put in code to read a key from the console after your main application code closes. The keystroke read in just gets thrown away, but it holds the console open.
It's not pretty, necessarily - but I often do this wrapped in a debug define, so during debugging, the console is held open. During release, I'm usually not running inside VS, and when run from a command line, this is no longer an issue.
The "don't do that" responses in this thread may seem curt, but they're fairly sensible. I happened across this question because I'm debugging a gtest suite that used to run fine, but now crashes mysteriously when launched. When run from the console, it pops up a dialog saying "blah.exe has stopped working"; but, when run from the debugger, the console pops up momentarily, vanishes, and the program exits with 0 status.
I should have been thinking about how odd this difference in behavior was, but instead I was like: "Aw, man---I gotta make that console window stay up so I can see what it says." Right?
It turns out that the machine I'm working on (a colleague of mine's) had the 'Command Arguments' for the debugger set to '--gtest_filter=*testMsg*'. I noticed this right away, too, but it never occurred to me that all the tests matching the filter had been renamed in a recent commit. So, when launched from the debugger, gtest wasn't finding any tests to run and was simply exiting. Another 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. (-_-) I could have ditched this tar baby a lot sooner if my knee-jerk reaction hadn't been to think I needed that console window to stay open in order to solve the problem...
Call this function before you return at the end of main:
void onEnd()
{
printf("Press any key to exit...");
_getch();
}
You can specify that the executable is a Console app, not a Windows app, at least in VS2017. This makes your application run in a "Microsoft Visual Studio Debug Console", with "Press Any Key To Close This Window" appearing at the end of the console output:
Right click the project to bring up Properties.
Linker > System > Subsystem > Select "Console".
Press Apply before closing.
I have a bug I am chasing (I think its a deadlock). When I run the code it hangs without the debugger flagging an error, so after a while I try pressing the pause (break all) button. The debugger then reports "The process appears to be deadlocked...". I then can see that all the threads are held up at lines saying EnterCriticalSection except for one which is already inside a critical section. When I look at the thread that is inside the C.S. with the debugger I see a green arrow, accompanied by a tiny blue circle pointing at a line with GetWindowText... as below:
// stuff A
{
GetWindowText(editwin[a].child_window_handle,existing_text,MAX_TEXT_SIZE-1);
}
// stuff B
If I hover the mouse over the green arrow I see the text "this is the next statement to execute when this thread returns from the current function". Now this has stumped me because I don't know if it means that it is stuck inside "stuff A" and is waiting to come back or its stuck inside GetWindowText and has somehow got stuck inside that. The arguments to GetWindowText all look sensible to me. If I click on "step into" I get the message "Unable to step. The process has been soft broken".
EDIT: stuff A is in fact the statement:
if (buf_ptr != NULL)
Usually a green arrow beside a line of code means "this is the next line that would be executed, if not for the fact we're stuck somewhere in a deeper stack frame." However, VS makes it impossible to say for sure based on the info provided so far...
[EDIT - of course, deep knowledge of Win32 can provide a very good guess - see the answer by "mos" for a likely explanation based on the GetWindowText() API's known pitfalls]
As mentioned, what Visual Studio shows you is sometimes misleading. To get a closer view of exactly what is happening you need to turn off some non-helpful "features" that VS enables by default. In Tools -> Options -> Debugging -> General, make sure:
Enable address-level debugging = ON
Enable Just My Code = OFF
Enable Source Server support = ON
This should allow you to:
1) break on / step over / etc the exact instruction that's causing the deadlock
2) see the full stack trace up to that point, regardless of module(s)
3) see source code whenever available, assuming your symbol & source servers are configured correctly
Your problem is that GetWindowText actually sends a message to the other window and waits for it to return. If that window is owned by another thread that is waiting for a critical section, GetWindowText will wait forever.
You're stuck inside GetWindowText, and have created a deadlock.
As the previous responses suggest, your code is stuck inside "Stuff A".
Can I suggest another tool for your tool-belt?
I usually find it much easier to debug native synchronization problems using WinDbg.
just launch your program in WinDbg, point to the correct symbols and all the info will be right there for your investigation using the !locks, !cs and k commands.
If you're new to WinDbg, you'll find that the internet is full with information about it. I recommend reading Advanced Windows Debugging as well.
It's a little bit difficult to start, comparing to the user friendly VS Debugger but every minute you'll invest in learning how to use it will save you hours of debugging further down the road.
Assuming your question is "Is this normal", then yes, the debugger usually shows the statement after the one stuck on a critical section.