Is it a bad practice to use a release version of 3rd party library in debug binary?
I am using a 3rd party library and compiled a release .lib library. My exe is in debug mode development. Then I got:
error LNK2038: mismatch detected for '_ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL': value '0' doesn't match value '2' in test1.obj
After some googling I found that is because I am trying to mix release with debug, and I should probably compile the library in debug mode or otherwise muddle with the _ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL macro. But I am just curious if that is the recommanded way and why. It just seem cumbersome that I need to compile and keep a record of both release and debug binaries for every 3rd party library I intend to use, which will be many very soon, while having no intention to debug into these code.
Mixing debug and release code is bad practice. The problem is that the different versions can depend on different fundamental parts of the C++ runtime library, such as how memory is allocated, structures for things like iterators might be different, extra code could be generated to perform operations (e.g. checked iterators).
It's the same as mixing library files built with any other different settings. Imagine a case where a header file contains a structure that is used by both application and library. The library is built with structure packing and alignment set to one value and the application built with another. There are no guarantees that passing the structure from the application into the library will work since they could vary in size and member positions.
Is it possible to build your 3rd party libraries as DLLs? Assuming the interface to any functions is cleaner and does not try to pass any STL objects you will be able to mix a debug application with release DLLs without problems.
Mixing debug and release library/binary is good and very useful practice.
Debugging a large solution (100+ projects as an example) typically is not fast or even could not be possible at all (for an example when not all projects can be built in debug). Previous commentators wrote that debug/release binary could have different alignment or another staff. It's not true. All linking parameters are same in debug and release binaries because they depends on the same architecture.
You have to remove all optimizations (/Od) from the selected project. Then assign a release c++ runtime.
The issue came because you have defined _DEBUG in the project. Remove the macro from the definitions (Project->Properties->Preprocessor->Preprocessor Definitions).
If the macro isn't in the Preprocessor Definitions, then you have to add it in "UndefinePreprocessorDefinitions".
The fact that it doesn't compile should be sufficient to prove it's bad practice.
Regarding maintaining separate builds - you don't need to do that. Here's a workaround that previously worked for me:
#ifdef _DEBUG
#define DEBUG_WAS_DEFINED
#undef _DEBUG
#endif
#include <culprit>
#ifdef DEBUG_WAS_DEFINED
#define _DEBUG
#endif
Let me know if this works for you.
Related
Is it a bad practice to use a release version of 3rd party library in debug binary?
I am using a 3rd party library and compiled a release .lib library. My exe is in debug mode development. Then I got:
error LNK2038: mismatch detected for '_ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL': value '0' doesn't match value '2' in test1.obj
After some googling I found that is because I am trying to mix release with debug, and I should probably compile the library in debug mode or otherwise muddle with the _ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL macro. But I am just curious if that is the recommanded way and why. It just seem cumbersome that I need to compile and keep a record of both release and debug binaries for every 3rd party library I intend to use, which will be many very soon, while having no intention to debug into these code.
Mixing debug and release code is bad practice. The problem is that the different versions can depend on different fundamental parts of the C++ runtime library, such as how memory is allocated, structures for things like iterators might be different, extra code could be generated to perform operations (e.g. checked iterators).
It's the same as mixing library files built with any other different settings. Imagine a case where a header file contains a structure that is used by both application and library. The library is built with structure packing and alignment set to one value and the application built with another. There are no guarantees that passing the structure from the application into the library will work since they could vary in size and member positions.
Is it possible to build your 3rd party libraries as DLLs? Assuming the interface to any functions is cleaner and does not try to pass any STL objects you will be able to mix a debug application with release DLLs without problems.
Mixing debug and release library/binary is good and very useful practice.
Debugging a large solution (100+ projects as an example) typically is not fast or even could not be possible at all (for an example when not all projects can be built in debug). Previous commentators wrote that debug/release binary could have different alignment or another staff. It's not true. All linking parameters are same in debug and release binaries because they depends on the same architecture.
You have to remove all optimizations (/Od) from the selected project. Then assign a release c++ runtime.
The issue came because you have defined _DEBUG in the project. Remove the macro from the definitions (Project->Properties->Preprocessor->Preprocessor Definitions).
If the macro isn't in the Preprocessor Definitions, then you have to add it in "UndefinePreprocessorDefinitions".
The fact that it doesn't compile should be sufficient to prove it's bad practice.
Regarding maintaining separate builds - you don't need to do that. Here's a workaround that previously worked for me:
#ifdef _DEBUG
#define DEBUG_WAS_DEFINED
#undef _DEBUG
#endif
#include <culprit>
#ifdef DEBUG_WAS_DEFINED
#define _DEBUG
#endif
Let me know if this works for you.
Brief introduction:
I am refactoring win32 application, I use VS 2008.
The application consists of both of my own dll and 3-rd party dll`s.
Issue:
When I run the application in the debug mode and execute some action the error is raised: the application programm has triggered a breakpoint, heap is corrupted.
Actions undertaken:
I have searched the internet and found that this error may be because of different build flags (multi-threaded debug /MD and multi-threaded debug dll /MDd) were used for dlls within the project(which results that they use different c runtime libraries, and for each library own list for work with memory is maintained this therfore can lead to the heap corruption).
I have checked my dlls - they all have the same flag: debug multithreaded dll. So I think that one of the 3-rd party DLL maybe was built with multi-threaded debug flag.
Questions:
Is it possible to find out with what flag 3-rd party library was
built, if so how can I do this.
How can I sort you my issue of
different build flags?
Is my guess about that error is due to
different build flags is correct?
Is it possible to find out with what flag 3-rd party library was built, if so how can I do this
Yes. C or C++ DLLs built with Visual Studio versions 2005 and 2008 require a manifest that states what version of the C runtime DLL they need. You can see it with VS, File + Open + File, select the DLL and open the node labeled "RT_MANIFEST". Resource ID 2 is the manifest that states the type and version of the CRT. It should match yours. Export it to make it easier to read. If it is missing then it either wasn't built with /MD or used a completely different version of VS, which in itself is bad news.
How can I sort you my issue of different build flags?
You can't. You'll need to contact the 3rd party and request a build that's compatible with yours.
Is my guess about that error is due to different build flags is correct?
It is possible but not terribly likely. Having a mismatch does not automatically cause a crash, a programmer can certainly design the DLL interface so that's never an issue. You can typically tell from the function signature and documentation. The problem case is where the DLL allocates an object and you are supposed to release it. It will be obvious when the function returns a pointer. Or a standard C++ class library object like std::string. Less obvious is when it throws an exception. Such a problem is also highly repeatable, it will bomb consistently, not occasionally.
The biggest mistake you are making is asking this question here. You should be talking to a programmer employed by that 3rd party that has worked on this DLL. He'll know the exact answer to your questions and can very easily solve your problem. If you cannot get this kind of support then you should not be using these DLLs, they'll make your life miserable for a long time to come.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Debug/Release difference
I want to know what do these two mean: Debug build and Release build and what is the difference between both.
Which one should I use (I mean which are the suitable conditions for each one)
and which build actually I am using now if I make a simple C++ project in Visual studio. [If I do not change any projects settings]
I am asking this because I am trying to make a GUI using wxWidgets 2.9.4 and they give different case of adding required .lib. these are
release ANSI static
debug ANSI static
release Unicode static
debug Unicode static
Please put a detailed answer.
Debug build and release build are just names. They don't mean anything.
Depending on your application, you may build it in one, two or more
different ways, using different combinations of compiler and linker
options. Most applications should only be build in a single version:
you test and debug exactly the same program that the clients use. In
some cases, it may be more practical to use two different builds:
overall, client code needs optimization, for performance reasons, but
you don't want optimization when debugging. And then there are cases
where full debugging (i.e. iterator validation, etc.) may result in code
that is too slow even for algorithm debugging, so you'll have a build
with full debugging checks, one with no optimization, but no iterator
debugging, and one with optimization.
Anytime you start on an application, you have to decide what options you
need, and create the corresponding builds. You can call them whatever
you want.
With regards to external libraries (like wxwidgets): all compilers have
some incompatibilities when different options are used. So people who
deliver libraries (other than in source form) have to provide several
different versions, depending on a number of issues:
release vs. debug: the release version will have been compiled with a
set of more or less standard optimization options (and no iterator
debugging); the debug version without optimization, and with iterator
debugging. Whether iterator debugging is present or not is one thing
which typically breaks binary compatibility. The library vendor should
document which options are compatible with each version.
ANSI vs. Unicode: this probably means narrow char vs wide wchar_t
for character data. Use which ever one corresponds to what you use in
your application. (Note that the difference between these two is much
more than just some compiler switches. You often need radically
different code, and handling Unicode correctly in all cases is far from
trivial; an application which truly supports Unicode must be aware of
things like composing characters or bidirectional writing.)
static vs. dynamic: this determines how the library is linked and
loaded. Usually, you'll want static, at least if you count on deploying
your application on other machines than the one you develop it on. But
this also depends on licensing issues: if you need a license for each
machine where the library is deployed, it might make more sense to use
dynamic.
When doing a DEBUG build the project is set up to not optimize (or only very lightly optimize) the generated code, and to tell the compiler to add debug information (which includes information about functions, variables, and other information needed for debugging). The pre-processor is set up to define the _DEBUG macro.
A RELEASE build on the other hand have higher level of optimization, and no debug information is saved. The pre-processor is set up to define the NDEBUG macro.
Another difference is that certain "system" macros, for example ASSERT-like macros, do different things depending on if _DEBUG or NDEBUG is defined. ASSERT does nothing in a release build, but does checks and abort in debug builds.
The difference between Unicode and non-Unicode is mostly the UNICODE pre-processor macro, which tells header files if certain Unicode functionality should be enabled or not. One thing is that TCHAR will be defined to wchar_t in Unicode builds but as char in non-Unicode builds.
In the debug build you get a lot more error checjking, so if something goes wrong you may get a more informative message ( and it will run more slowly )
In the debug build you will get more information when you run it under the debugger.
You can tell if the build is debug build by looking at the preprocessor definitions of the project properties: _DEBUG will be defined.
You will send the release build to your clients. ( The debug build uses the debug libraries which are not present on most non development machines )
if you want to link a static library to a project, it needs to be compiled with the same settings that you use to compile your code. That's why there is a Debug & a Release version of the library. Additionally, you need to specify whether you want to use unicode or ansi. Here the answer is quite simple (in my opinion) - just use unicode.
What is different in Release compared to Debug so that they can't mix? Mainly it's the memory management. The memory management in Debug does a lot of additional things to allow you to find errors early. As an example, there are canaries that can be checked for overwriting of code. Uninitialized memory is initialized with a specific pattern, ... Additionally, there are a lot of optimizations in release that are not used in debug. This allows release to run faster but makes it difficult to debug the code. Methods might get optimized away and instead are inlined, the parameter passing may be optimized to use registers, ...
So in C++ you manage (at least) 2 configurations. One Debug configuration that you link with the debug library. This one is for developing & testing. And a Release configuration linked with the release library. This one is for delivery. But don't forget that you need to test Release as well as it might behave differently than the Debug configuration.
I'm getting the linker error LNK2038 when trying to convert a VS2008 project to VS2010. This error occurs when two different projects are compiled in which one is using _DEBUG preprocessor macro, and the other is not. Basically I have a 3rd party library that only has release .libs, so when I try and use that library when building my project in debug mode I get this mismatch.
I understand why Microsoft is giving this error (STL iterator safety), however our project does not use Microsoft's STL, we use STLPort, so this error means nothing to our project. I just need a way to prevent it from doing this check.
Inside of the STL includes there is a file called yvals.h, which includes the #pragma detect_mismatch definition for the various _ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL settings. That set of definitions is wrapped in an #ifndef _ALLOW_ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL_MISMATCH, #endif. However, even if I define _ALLOW_ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL_MISMATCH as a preprocessor macro for my entire project I'm still getting the same linker error. I can even alter yvals.h to define that macro and it does nothing (I'm assuming because the STL itself would need to be recompiled).
So my question is basically, what steps can I take make _ALLOW_ITERATOR_DEBUG_LEVEL_MISMATCH actually work as intended so that my project doesn't do this check anywhere when compiling in VS2010?
EDIT: I know this is a late response but I just found this post and realized I didn't post the solution. As others mentioned there was a mismatch in the libraries. As it turns out VS2010 changes the default directories for certain projects (I found a thread on MSDN at one point full of complaints about it), and that directory change had caused VS2010 to look in the wrong directory for the debug library, and it was finding the release library instead.
You must use the same version of the standard library, compiled with the
same options, if you expect to successfully link. If you use STLPort,
then you can only link with libraries which use the STLPort, not with
libraries which use the VC++ standard implementation. If you mix,
either you will fail to link, or you will get strange runtime errors.
The problem is that things like std::vector<>::iterator may be defined
completely differently; depending on where and how they are used, you
will find yourself using an instance constructed in a different library,
with a different layout.
I am writing an C++ application that could be compiled under Linux (gcc 4.3) and Windows (MS VS08 Express).
My application uses third-party libraries,
On Linux , they are compiled as shared libraries, while
on Windows, there are two versions "Debug" and "Release".
I know that debug version provides extra support for debugging ( just like using -ggdb option in linux gcc, right? )
But I found that if my application is in debug version , the libraries must also be in debug version, otherwise the application will crash.
Why is there such a limit? It seems that there are no such limits in the linux world
Thank you very much!
The Debug configuration of your
program is compiled with full symbolic
debug information and no optimization.
Optimization complicates debugging,
because the relationship between
source code and generated instructions
is more complex.
The Release configuration of your
program contains no symbolic debug
information and is fully optimized.
Debug information can be generated in
PDB Files (C++) depending on the
compiler options used. Creating PDB
files can be very useful if you later
need to debug your release version.
Debug vs Release
It is also possible to debug your release build with the compiler flags.
Debugging Release Builds
Heap Layout - Guard Bytes to prevent overwriting
Compilation - Removing Assert/Debug Info
Pointer Support - Buffers around pointers to prevent seg faults
Optimization - Inline Functions
Common Problems When Creating Release Builds
To elaborate on Martin Tornwall. The various libraries linked when in Debug or Release
LIBCPMT.LIB, Multithreaded, static link, /MT, _MT
LIBCPMTD.LIB, Multithreaded, static link, /MTd, _DEBUG, _MT
CRT Libraries
Most likely, the Release and Debug versions are linked against different versions of the C++ Runtime library. Usually, a Debug build links against the "Multithreaded Debug DLL" runtime, whereas a Release build will generally link against "Multithreaded DLL". Loading DLLs whose runtime libraries are mismatched with that of the application will often lead to mysterious crashes.
You could try verifying that all your DLLs build against the same runtime library as your application, regardless of which configuration (Debug or Release) is active. Whether or not this is desirable is another question entirely.
The ability to choose which runtime library to link with enables the application developer to select the best feature set given her application's requirements. For example, a single-threaded application might incur performance penalties as a result of unnecessary thread synchronization if it is linked with a runtime library that is designed with thread safety in mind. Likewise, the consequences of linking a multi-threaded application against a single-threaded runtime could potentially be disastrous.
While I never intentionally link libraries that were built with different compiler settings, there isn't much point in doing so, I only know of the STL classes in the Dinkumware implementation (the one MSFT uses) to cause this problem.
They support a feature called 'iterator debugging' which is turned on by default in the Debug configuration. This adds members to the classes to aid the diagnostic code. Making them larger. This goes bad when you create the object in a chunk of code that was compiled with one setting and pass it to code that was compiled with the opposite setting. You can turn this off by setting the _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING macro to 0. Which is rather a major loss, the feature is excellent to diagnose mistakes in the way you use STL classes.
Passing objects or pointers between different libraries is always a problem if you don't carefully control the compile settings. Mixing and matching the CRT version and flavor gets you in trouble when you do so. This normally generates a warning from the linker, not sure what you did to not see it. There won't be one if the code lives in a DLL.