I want to profile my program not for performance reason but to see the logic of the program.
If function A calls B then C and D it would be something like:
A -> B
-> C -> E
-> F
-> D
Presently I use valgrind/callgrind. It is very usefull but does not respond precisely to my demand. We don't see all the different callstacks and we don't see in which order the functions are called.
For instance if we have also
F->G (but not in the context the stack A->C->F), we won't make this distinction, we only see the callers/callees.
I am in the Unix environment.
Thanks for your help,
Christophe
I don't know of a good tool for this, other than stepping the code in a debugger.
If you are using a good IDE like Visual Studio, there are probably function buttons for stepping over (F10), into (F11), and out (shift-F11) of function calls.
If you are using a debugger like GDB, the commands are n, s, and fin.
You may find that this takes way more time than you have patience for.
In that case, what I do is continue it (F5 in VS, c in GDB) and then pause it (Pause in VS, Ctl-C in GDB) and display the call stack to see where it is and why it is there. I do that several times.
If I want to, I can step forward from that point for a while.
That gives me a good idea of how the program is spending most of its time, and why.
I don't know of any other tool that will convey that kind of information, in a compiled language like C++.
Interpreted languages may have a trace facility that traces all function calls, but as I said before, the volume may be overwhelming.
A profiler like gprof may be able to give you a call graph, which you might be able to combine with stepping to give you the time sequence.
Be aware that it won't include any I/O, sleeps, or other system waits, but it might still be useful.
Related
I've used a few profilers in the past and never found them particularly easy. Maybe I picked bad ones, maybe I didn't really know what I was expecting!
But I'd like to know if there are any 'standard' profilers which simply drop in and work? I don't believe I need massively fine-detailed reports, just to pick up major black-spots. Ease of use is more important to me at this point.
It's VC++ 2008 we're using (I run standard edition personally). I don't suppose there are any tools in the IDE for this, I can't see any from looking at the main menus?
I suggest a very simple method (which I learned from reading Mike Dunlavey's posts on SO):
Just pause the program.
Do it several times to get a reasonable sample. If a particular function is taking half of your program's execution time, the odds are that you will catch it in the act very quickly.
If you improve that function's performance by 50%, then you've just improved overall execution time by 25%. And if you discover that it's not even needed at all (I have found several such cases in the short time I've been using this method), you've just cut the execution time in half.
I must confess that at first I was quite skeptical of the efficacy of this approach, but after trying it for a couple of weeks, I'm hooked.
VS built in:
If you have team edition you can use the Visual Studio profiler.
Other options:
Otherwise check this thread.
Creating your own easily:
I personally use an internally built one based on the Win32 API QueryPerformanceCounter.
You can make something nice and easy to use within a hundred lines of code or less.
The process is simple: create a macro at the top of each function that you want to profile called PROFILE_FUNC() and that will add to internally managed stats. Then have another macro called PROFILE_DUMP() which will dump the outputs to a text document.
PROFILE_FUNC() creates an object that will use RAII to log the amount of time until the object is destroyed. Both the constructor of this RAII object and the destructor will call QueryPerformanceCounter. You could also leave these lines in your code and control the behavior via a #define PROFILING_ON
I always used AMD CodeAnalyst, I find it quite easy to use and gives interesting results. I always used the time based profile, in which I found that it cooperates well with my apps' debug information, letting me find where the time is spent at procedure, C++ instruction and single assembly instruction level.
I used lt prof in the past for a quick run down of my C++ app. It works pretty easy and runs with a compiled program, does not need and source code hooks or tweaks. There is a trial version available I believe.
A very simple (and free) way to profile is to install the Windows debuggers (cdb/windbg), set a bp on the place of interest, and issue the wt command ("Trace and Watch Data"). Check out MSDN for more info.
Another super simple and useful profiling workflow that works on any programming languages is to comment out blocks of codes. After commenting out all of them, uncomment some and run your program to see the performance. If your program starts to run very slow when some code has been uncommented, then you'll probably want to check the performance there.
Assume I want to understand a larger project by just stepping through the code with a debugger. Is it possible to just jump in at an arbitrary point (given I define the correct variables)? How do I debug libraries that don't have a main?
To debug code in a library, write a little application (that has a main()) that calls the functions in the library you need to debug. Then debug that application and step into the library calls it makes.
As for just "jumping into an arbitrary location" - well, you can instruct the debugger to move the instruction pointer to wherever you please, but that's usually not what you want, because you'd be missing a lot of state that previous parts of the program will have created. Usually what you want to do is set a breakpoint in the function you are interested in and then just run the program normally until you hit the breakpoint.
The best way would be to run the application as it is and set a breakpoint whenever you want to look. The thing is that the program might do lot of initialization and other stuff, that you wouldn't be able to figure out.
Another approach would be to look out for unit tests. They are like small programs itself targeting just specific parts of the program.
I know that E&C is a controversial subject and some say that it encourages a wrong approach to debugging, but still - I think we can agree that there are numerous cases when it is clearly useful - experimenting with different values of some constants, redesigning GUI parameters on-the-fly to find a good look... You name it.
My question is: Are we ever going to have E&C on GDB? I understand that it is a platform-specific feature and needs some serious cooperation with the compiler, the debugger and the OS (MSVC has this one easy as the compiler and debugger always come in one package), but... It still should be doable. I've even heard something about Apple having it implemented in their version of GCC [citation needed]. And I'd say it is indeed feasible.
Knowing all the hype about MSVC's E&C (my experience says it's the first thing MSVC users mention when asked "why not switch to Eclipse and gcc/gdb"), I'm seriously surprised that after quite some years GCC/GDB still doesn't have such feature. Are there any good reasons for that? Is someone working on it as we speak?
It is a surprisingly non-trivial amount of work, encompassing many design decisions and feature tradeoffs. Consider: you are debugging. The debugee is suspended. Its image in memory contains the object code of the source, and the binary layout of objects, the heap, the stacks. The debugger is inspecting its memory image. It has loaded debug information about the symbols, types, address mappings, pc (ip) to source correspondences. It displays the call stack, data values.
Now you want to allow a particular set of possible edits to the code and/or data, without stopping the debuggee and restarting. The simplest might be to change one line of code to another. Perhaps you recompile that file or just that function or just that line. Now you have to patch the debuggee image to execute that new line of code the next time you step over it or otherwise run through it. How does that work under the hood? What happens if the code is larger than the line of code it replaced? How does it interact with compiler optimizations? Perhaps you can only do this on a specially compiled for EnC debugging target. Perhaps you will constrain possible sites it is legal to EnC. Consider: what happens if you edit a line of code in a function suspended down in the call stack. When the code returns there does it run the original version of the function or the version with your line changed? If the original version, where does that source come from?
Can you add or remove locals? What does that do to the call stack of suspended frames? Of the current function?
Can you change function signatures? Add fields to / remove fields from objects? What about existing instances? What about pending destructors or finalizers? Etc.
There are many, many functionality details to attend to to make any kind of usuable EnC work. Then there are many cross-tools integration issues necessary to provide the infrastructure to power EnC. In particular, it helps to have some kind of repository of debug information that can make available the before- and after-edit debug information and object code to the debugger. For C++, the incrementally updatable debug information in PDBs helps. Incremental linking may help too.
Looking from the MS ecosystem over into the GCC ecosystem, it is easy to imagine the complexity and integration issues across GDB/GCC/binutils, the myriad of targets, some needed EnC specific target abstractions, and the "nice to have but inessential" nature of EnC, are why it has not appeared yet in GDB/GCC.
Happy hacking!
(p.s. It is instructive and inspiring to look at what the Smalltalk-80 interactive programming environment could do. In St80 there was no concept of "restart" -- the image and its object memory were always live, if you edited any aspect of a class you still had to keep running. In such environments object versioning was not a hypothetical.)
I'm not familiar with MSVC's E&C, but GDB has some of the things you've mentioned:
http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Altering.html#Altering
17. Altering Execution
Once you think you have found an error in your program, you might want to find out for certain whether correcting the apparent error would lead to correct results in the rest of the run. You can find the answer by experiment, using the gdb features for altering execution of the program.
For example, you can store new values into variables or memory locations, give your program a signal, restart it at a different address, or even return prematurely from a function.
Assignment: Assignment to variables
Jumping: Continuing at a different address
Signaling: Giving your program a signal
Returning: Returning from a function
Calling: Calling your program's functions
Patching: Patching your program
Compiling and Injecting Code: Compiling and injecting code in GDB
This is a pretty good reference to the old Apple implementation of "fix and continue". It also references other working implementations.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-06/msg00500.html
Here is a snippet:
Fix and continue is a feature implemented by many other debuggers,
which we added to our gdb for this release. Sun Workshop, SGI ProDev
WorkShop, Microsoft's Visual Studio, HP's wdb, and Sun's Hotspot Java
VM all provide this feature in one way or another. I based our
implementation on the HP wdb Fix and Continue feature, which they
added a few years back. Although my final implementation follows the
general outlines of the approach they took, there is almost no shared
code between them. Some of this is because of the architectual
differences (both the processor and the ABI), but even more of it is
due to implementation design differences.
Note that this capability may have been removed in a later version of their toolchain.
UPDATE: Dec-21-2012
There is a GDB Roadmap PDF presentation that includes a slide describing "Fix and Continue" among other bullet points. The presentation is dated July-9-2012 so maybe there is hope to have this added at some point. The presentation was part of the GNU Tools Cauldron 2012.
Also, I get it that adding E&C to GDB or anywhere in Linux land is a tough chore with all the different components.
But I don't see E&C as controversial. I remember using it in VB5 and VB6 and it was probably there before that. Also it's been in Office VBA since way back. And it's been in Visual Studio since VS2005. VS2003 was the only one that didn't have it and I remember devs howling about it. They intended to add it back anyway and they did with VS2005 and it's been there since. It works with C#, VB, and also C and C++. It's been in MS core tools for 20+ years, almost continuous (counting VB when it was standalone), and subtracting VS2003. But you could still say they had it in Office VBA during the VS2003 period ;)
And Jetbrains recently added it too their C# tool Rider. They bragged about it (rightly so imo) in their Rider blog.
When I'm using my debugger (in my particular case, it was QT Creator together with GDB that inspired this) on my C++ code, sometimes even after calling make clean followed by make the debugger seems to freak out.
Sometimes it will seem to be lined up with another piece of code's line numbers, and will jump around. Sometimes this is is off by one line, sometimes this is totally off and it'll jump around erratically.
Other times, it'll freak out by stepping into things I didn't ask it to step into, like while stepping over a function call, it might step into the string initialization routine that is part of it.
When I get seg faults, sometimes it's able to tell me where it happened perfectly, and other times it's not even able to display question marks for which functions called the code and from where, and all I see is assembly, even while running the exact same code repeatedly.
I can't seem to figure out a pattern to what causes these failures, and sometimes my debugger is perfectly well behaved.
What are the theoretical reasons behind these debugger freak outs, and what are the concrete steps I can take to prevent them?
There's 3 very common reasons
You're debugging optimized code. This rarely works - optimized code can be reordered/inlined/precomputed/etc. to the point there's no chance whatsoever to map it back to the source code.
You're not debugging, for whatever reason, the binary matching the current source code.
You've invoked undefined behavior somewhere - if whatever stuff your code did, it has messed around with the scaffolding the debugger needs to keep its sanity. This is what usually happens when you get a segfault and you can't get a sane stack trace, you've overwritten/messed with the information(e.g. stack pointers) the debugger needs to do its job.
And probably hundreds more - of the stuff I personally encounter is: debugging multithreaded code; depending on gcc/gdb versions and various other things - there's been quite a handful debugger bugs.
One possible reason is that debuggers are as buggy as any other program!
But the most common reason for a debugger not showing the right source location is that the compiler optimized the code in some way, so there is no simple correspondence between the source code and the executable code. A common optimization that confuses debuggers is inlining, and C++ is very prone to it.
For example, your string initialization routine was probably inlined into the function call, so as far as the debugger was concerned, there was just one function that happened to start with some string initialization code.
If you're tracking down an algorithm bug (as opposed to a coding bug that produces undefined behavior, or a concurrency bug), turning the optimization level down will help you track the bug, because the debugger will have a simpler view of the code.
I have the same question like yours, and I cannot solve it yet. But I have came out one problem solution which is to install a virtual machine and install Unix system in it. And debug it in Linux system. Perhaps it will work.
I have found out the reason, you should rebuild the project every time you changed your code, or the Qt will just run the old version of the code.
I've used a few profilers in the past and never found them particularly easy. Maybe I picked bad ones, maybe I didn't really know what I was expecting!
But I'd like to know if there are any 'standard' profilers which simply drop in and work? I don't believe I need massively fine-detailed reports, just to pick up major black-spots. Ease of use is more important to me at this point.
It's VC++ 2008 we're using (I run standard edition personally). I don't suppose there are any tools in the IDE for this, I can't see any from looking at the main menus?
I suggest a very simple method (which I learned from reading Mike Dunlavey's posts on SO):
Just pause the program.
Do it several times to get a reasonable sample. If a particular function is taking half of your program's execution time, the odds are that you will catch it in the act very quickly.
If you improve that function's performance by 50%, then you've just improved overall execution time by 25%. And if you discover that it's not even needed at all (I have found several such cases in the short time I've been using this method), you've just cut the execution time in half.
I must confess that at first I was quite skeptical of the efficacy of this approach, but after trying it for a couple of weeks, I'm hooked.
VS built in:
If you have team edition you can use the Visual Studio profiler.
Other options:
Otherwise check this thread.
Creating your own easily:
I personally use an internally built one based on the Win32 API QueryPerformanceCounter.
You can make something nice and easy to use within a hundred lines of code or less.
The process is simple: create a macro at the top of each function that you want to profile called PROFILE_FUNC() and that will add to internally managed stats. Then have another macro called PROFILE_DUMP() which will dump the outputs to a text document.
PROFILE_FUNC() creates an object that will use RAII to log the amount of time until the object is destroyed. Both the constructor of this RAII object and the destructor will call QueryPerformanceCounter. You could also leave these lines in your code and control the behavior via a #define PROFILING_ON
I always used AMD CodeAnalyst, I find it quite easy to use and gives interesting results. I always used the time based profile, in which I found that it cooperates well with my apps' debug information, letting me find where the time is spent at procedure, C++ instruction and single assembly instruction level.
I used lt prof in the past for a quick run down of my C++ app. It works pretty easy and runs with a compiled program, does not need and source code hooks or tweaks. There is a trial version available I believe.
A very simple (and free) way to profile is to install the Windows debuggers (cdb/windbg), set a bp on the place of interest, and issue the wt command ("Trace and Watch Data"). Check out MSDN for more info.
Another super simple and useful profiling workflow that works on any programming languages is to comment out blocks of codes. After commenting out all of them, uncomment some and run your program to see the performance. If your program starts to run very slow when some code has been uncommented, then you'll probably want to check the performance there.