Just a quick question from me.
Whilst using GDB I have noticed that, when examining memory, the symbols '*' and '$' can be used to somehow dereference memory locations, define the value as a literal numeric value (rather than an address), or something similar.
I was wondering if anyone could clearly summarise how using these symbols effects what memory you are trying to access?
I am mid-way through writing a short tutorial on basic GDB usage and I could use a succinct definition of how these symbols are actually acting. Although I use them frequently when I use GDB, It dawned on me that I have not got a definition for what they are actually doing. If you have specific references to where this is discussed in GDB's documentation that would be most useful indeed. However, I have been unsuccessful (read impatient :P) in finding this information.
Thanks in advance,
A
Related
I am brand new to C++, trying to create a program to read pixels on the screen on Linux.
I currently compile the project without any optimization flag, as I am unsure what it does to the program, but that would be another question, here's mine:
Is striping certain information from a C++ binary safe?
I found a possibly helpful manual page of strip program.
As I don't really know what striping means in this context, I am unsure if it is as simple as striping all of it with:
-s --strip-all Remove all symbol and relocation information
But, of course, I'd want the program to work flawlessly then, so does it interfere anyhow with program's execution?
As for my motivation for striping: I want to know if it's safe, and as I said already, I repeat:
I don't really know what striping means in this context.
I thought the answerer could have also covered this. For me to decide.
Symbols are used for debugging.
Your application would continue to work with out issues if you strip them; but you may find it harder to debug if there's a problem.
Relocation information is used for dynamic library loading and for address space layout randomisation (thank you #interjay); and from the strip documentation
--remove-relocations=sectionpattern
... Note that using this option inappropriately may make the output file unusable. ...
Is it possible for a function in C++ to find the addresses of all variables in a certain scope? I'm talking about methods such as scanning the memory used by the program, or looking at a compiler's parse tree. Maybe there's even a mechanism added for it in C++11.
This is something I've been wondering about for a few time now, some good answers will be appreciated.
Thanks.
note: the code should be called from inside the program.
This is something that all debuggers can do, so I think it would be possible for a program to get that level of introspection if it is compiled with debug information and can somehow parse its own symbol table.
This project implemented debug info parsing to generate class introspection for C++. I guess the same approach would work for your purposes.
Also, I doubt this will be possible if you compile with optimizations, since the optimizer may change your code enough that a mapping from individual variables in the source code to memory locations does not exist.
I have a couple of simple C++ homeworks and I know the students shared code. These are smart students and they know how to cheat moss. I'm looking for a tool that can rename variables based on their types (first variable of type int will be int1, first int array will be intptr1...), or does something similar that I cannot think of now. Do you know a quick way to do this?
edit: I'm required to use moss and report 90% match
Thanks
Yep, the tool you're looking for is called a compiler. :)
Seriously, if the programs submitted are exactly the same except for the identifier names, compiling then (without debugging info) should result in exactly the same output.
If you do this with debugging turned on, the compiler may leave meta-data in the executable that is different for each executable, hence the comment about ensuring it is off. This is also why this wont work for Java programs - that kind of info is present whether in debug mode or not (for the purposes of dynamic introspection).
EDIT: I see from the comments added to the question that you're observing some submissions that are different in more than just identifier names. If the programs are still structurally equivalent, this should still work.
EDIT: Given that the use of moss is a requirement, this probably isn't the way to go. I does seem though that moss has some support for comparing assembly - perhaps compiling to assembler and submitting that to moss is an option (depending on what compiler you're using).
You can download and try our C CloneDR duplicate code detector. It finds duplicated code even when the variable names have been changed. Multiple changes in the same chunk are treated as just one; if they rename the varaibles consistenly everywhere, you'll get back a report of "one clone" with the precise variable subsitution.
You can try Copy Paste Detector with ignoreIdentifiers turned on. You can at least use it for a first pass before going to the effort of normalizing names for moss. Or, since the source is available, maybe you can get it to spit out its internal normalization of the code.
Another way of doing this would be to compile the applications and compare their binaries, so your examination is not limited to variable/function name changing.
An HEX editor can help you with that. I just tried ExamDiff (not free $) and I was happy with the result.
I have been working for the last few weeks trying to track down a really difficult bug that crashes my application. First, the application was crashing on the assign of a std::string, then during the free of a local variable.
After careful inspection of the code, there was no reason for it to crash at these locations; however, it always crashed while trying to free an invalid pointer (i.e. a pointer that pointed to invalid memory). And I have no idea why this pointer was not pointing to the right location.
I suspect that the issue has to do with a memory corruption problem or pointer corruption problem of some sort. The problem is that I can't visually track it down....yet. I have no idea where to start looking in the code, and there are thousands of lines of code to go through so this does not seem like a realistic approach to the problem.
So in comes Valgrind...
A tool that I have depended upon many a time to find issues within the code that may lead to a crash of this type. However, this time it has come up empty handed! I do not see any errors in valgrind when the problem occurs and so hence the reason for me asking this question.
Are there any other applications that can complement valgrind and help find issues in the code that may cause a crash mentioned above?
Thanks!
I assume you're using valgrind's memcheck tool, which is what it is famous for. Since you are using valgrind already you might also try running your program through valgrind --tool=exp-sgcheck (formerly exp-ptrcheck), which is an experimental tool that is designed to catch certain types of errors that memcheck will miss, including access checks for stack and global arrays, and use of pointers that happen to point to a valid object but not the object that was intended. It does this by using a completely different mechanism, essentially tracking each pointer into memory rather than tracking the memory itself, and through use of heuristics.
Be aware that the tool is experimental, but you may find that it catches something significant. Currently it does not yet support OS X or non-Intel processors.
In my experience, coverity and purify have founds such kind of errors than valgrind didn't (in fact all found problems which weren't seen by the others).
But sometimes no tool give an hint and you have to dig more, add instrumentation, play with breakpoints on "modify memory at address", try to simply the testcase which fails and so on to find out the root cause. That's can be very painful.
My experience is that often this sort of problem is caused by a heap overflow. Electric Fence is a relatively simple allocation debugging tool I like to use. Its main use is as a dynamic analysis tool to check for heap overflows, a complement to "-fstack-protector-all" which checks for stack overflows.
More links to efence stuff.
Is it possible some stack corruption is occurring? If so, try enabling stack canaries with the -fstack-protector-all option, assuming you are using g++.
Other than that, have you cranked up warning flags to help identify suspicious code?
In my opinion, using a debugger with "reverse debugging" capabilities could help.
You would be able to step back in time and hopefully find out what was the real source of the problem.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/news/reversible.html
http://undo-software.com/ (which apparently is free for non-commercial applications)
You didn't specify the platform, but I can recommend Gimpel PC-lint as an excellent static analysis tool (don't be fooled by the name!). They also offer FlexeLint for other platforms, but I have no personal experience of that product.
Have you tried using lint, flexlint or cppcheck. These may help identify a problem.
If you know what area of memory is being corrupted have you tried marking this memory as protected. This may mask your problem and not help at all but if it still crashes the point at where the memory is modified will help resolve your problem.
If valgrind can identify the bad pointer being passed to free(), you could try running the program under DDD, which can set a hardware watchpoing on the memory location and halt the program when it is getting a bad value. If the pointer is getting changed a lot you may have to write some code around malloc and free to keep track of which values are good and bad.
Debugging with gdb, any c++ code that uses STL/boost is still a nightmare. Anyone who has used gdb with STL knows this. For example, see sample runs of some debugging sessions in code here.
I am trying to reduce the pain by collecting tips. Can you please comment on the tips I have collected below (particularly which ones you have been using and any changes you would recommend on them) - I have listed the tips is decreasing order of technicality.
Is anyone using "Stanford GDB STL utils" and "UCF GDB utils"? Is there some such utils for boost data structures? The utils above do not seem to be usable recursively, for example for printing vector of a boost::shared_ptr in a legible manner within one command.
Write your .gdbinit file. Include, for example, C++ related beautifiers, listed at the bottom of UCF GDB utils.
Use checked/debug STL/Boost library, such as STLport.
Use logging (for example as described here)
Update: GDB has a new C++ branch.
Maybe not the sort of "tip" you were looking for, but I have to say that my experience after a few years of moving from C++ & STL to C++ & boost & STL is that I now spend a lot less time in GDB than I used to. I put this down to a number of things:
boost smart pointers (particularly "shared pointer", and the pointer containers when performance is needed). I can't remember the last time I had to write an explicit delete (delete is the "goto" of C++ IMHO). There goes a lot of GDB time tracking down invalid and leaking pointers.
boost is full of proven code for things you'd probably hack together an inferior version of otherwise. e.g boost::bimap is great for the common pattern of LRU caching logic. There goes another heap of GDB time.
Adopting unittesting. boost::test's AUTO macros mean it's an absolute doddle to set up test cases (easier than CppUnit). This catches lots of stuff long before it gets built into anything you'd have to attach a debugger to.
Related to that, tools like boost::bind make it easier to design-for-test. e.g algorithms can be more generic and less tied up with the types they operate on; this makes plugging them into test shims/proxies/mock objects etc easier (that and the fact that exposure to boost's template-tasticness will encourage you to "dare to template" things you'd never have considered before, yielding similar testing benefits).
boost::array. "C array" performance, with range checking in debug builds.
boost is full of great code you can't help but learn from
You might look at:
Inspecting standard container (std::map) contents with gdb
I think the easiest and most option is to use logging (well I actually use debug prints, but I think that's not a point). The biggest advantage is that you can inspect any type of data, many times per program execution and then search it with a text editor to look for interesting data. Note that this is very fast. The disadvantage is obvious, you must preselect the data which you want to log and places where to log. However, that is not such a serious issue, because you usually know where in the code bad things are happening (and if not, you just add sanity checks here and there and then, you will know).
Checked/debug libraries are good, but they are better as a testing tool (eg. run it and see if I'm doing anything wrong), and not as good at debugging a specific issue. They can't detect a flaw in user code.
Otherwise, I use plain GDB. It is not that bad as it sounds, although it might be if you are scared by "print x" printing a screenful of junk. But, if you have debugging information, things like printing a member of a std::vector work and if anything fails, you still can inspect the raw memory by the x command. But if I know what I'm looking for, I use option 1 - logging.
Note that the "difficult to inspect" structures are not only STL/Boost, but also from other libraries, like Qt/KDE.