I've read the thread break whenever a file(or class) is entered. And I now understood the basic mechanism how to automatically set breakpoints in the classes. However, the solution that thread provided is focused on .net framework. My problem is how to deal with it in standard C++. We use vc 10 compiler on windows 7 platform.
Besides, we prefer methods which do not need recompile when we rechoose the class which we want to inspect since it is a huge project and recompilation takes a lot of time.
Thanks in advanceļ¼
You can do it from the IDE:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/habibh/archive/2009/09/10/class-breakpoint-how-to-set-a-breakpoint-on-a-c-class-in-the-visual-studio-debugger.aspx
The answer Emile Cormier gives is a good solution. When I try to add a breakpoint "Stack::* " as the link says, I found there is no red point on the left of code lines until I start debugging the program. After stopping the program, the red points disappear, but the break point window will keep track of every breakpoint and you can turn to the code by double clicking the breakpoint in the breakpoint window.
As far as i know, you can only set memory breakpoints (break whenever the contents of a certain memory address is read/written) and then manual breakpoints (break on a certain line of code).
Your best bet may be to set a breakpoint at the beginning of the function call(s) you want to debug.
Related
I am getting this error with my c++ code:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/vcerror.png/
The only problem is it doesn't point me to where the problem is... I understand the string subscript is out of range but I have no idea where it could be.
I was wondering if there is anyway I am able to find where it is? I have a rough idea so I have put a breakpoint in there but how VC++ does breakpoints is horrible. I step-through but it only shows me the code from the C++ files themselves, not my own code.
So, I step over and the error shows straight away.
How can I track down this problem?
Basically, you need to look at the callstack and have all your symbols setup.
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that you may not know how to use the "call stack" window.
In a debug session of your program and no breakpoints set, allow your program to run until it hits the assert dialog. Press "retry" to allow control to be passed to the debugger. Another dialog may pop up to prompt you to "break" or "continue". Select break. You should be broken into the debugger at this point.
Then make sure you can see the call stack and have at least one watch window up.
Debug->Windows->Call Stack.
Debug->Windows->Watch->Watch 1
You can double-click on any item in the call stack window to jump to the exact line of code where execution is expected to return to. (Sometimes the little arrow on the editor window is pointing to the next line of code to run after the previous call returns). Double click on the function line in the call-stack window that is directly below the top call stack line. That's likely std::basic_string::operator. What value is getting passed into this function? If hovering over the variable name doesn't work, add it to the "Watch" window. Also, add a watch for "this" so you can analyze the actual size and capacity of the string.
Double click on the function call in the call-stack below where you are currently at. This should take you to the actual buggy line of code in your program. Add another watch for the string variable and should be able to figure out what went wrong.
The rest is up to you.
I'm assuming this is a standalone EXE project with everything build by the IDE. If it is not, then make sure the PDB files from each binary produced is in the same directory as the corresponding binary. Again, if this is a simple EXE project in Visual Studio, this is automatic. Just to be sure, make sure you "Clean" your build first, then do a complete rebuild. That sometimes fixes debugging kinks.
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.
I just fired up totalview on my "hello world" application (c++) and i only get to view the assembly code.
Is there any settings/flags i need to set to view the source code? Menubar->View->Source As->Source does not work for me.
the application im trying to debug is just a cout << "Hello World" application, just to get the debugger up and running.
Lets start with the simple stuff.
Did you compile your application with the '-g' debugging flag? The debugger relies on the compiler to provide it with a symbol table and line number table to map what happens in the executable back to your source code. Without that -g flag (or if you subsequently strip your application) that info won't be present and assembly debugging is the best you can hope for.
If you did compile with -g are the source and the executable all together in the same directory, or if not have they been moved since you compiled them? The compiler only knows the locations of the source and executable at the time they are created, if you move them around then sometimes the debugger won't be able to locate the source code file. In that case you might need to give it some help by defining a source code search path.
Write back here and let me know if -g fixed your problem. If not we can look into the search path and such.
Cheers,
Chris
I realize that Jason94 has almost certainly solved his problem some other way, but I figured I could chime in here to answer this since it is a good question.
For this particular case it would be interesting to know if the program is multi-threaded. TotalView is designed to let you work with multi-threaded programs and it has a characteristic that may be surprising to users. By default it won't always focus you on the thread that hits the breakpoint. So your program might actually have stopped at your second breakpoint in another thread.
Imagine you have 6 threads (we'll number them 0 - 5) and you set a breakpoint in a routine. Thread 0 is the one you are focused on and you hit "go". The program runs and thread 4 hits the breakpoint first. By default the breakpoint will stop the whole process when the breakpoint is hit. In the debugger you might see assembly representing where thread 0 was when thread 4 hit the breakpoint.
You can check the root window or the thread pane to see what the status of the other threads are and you might see that one of them says "B2" (for breakpoint 2). Then you can click on that thread and TotalView will refocus you to that thread and you'll see it sitting at the breakpoint.
Why do we do that? Well, because we think it is confusing/disconcerting to have your focus "ripped away from you" just because another thread hit a breakpoint. So by default we leave the user in control of their thread focus.
There is a preference that you can change which will tell totalview to refocus the process window to the "site of the event". You can set that if you would prefer to have TotalView refocus your attention to the breakpoint, but be aware that as you do that you may be bouncing from one thread to the next.
The other possibility is that TotalView stopped the process for some reason other than a breakpoint being hit. Did the program segfault? Check the status bar at the top of the process window to see what the status of the thread and process are.
Anyway -- just wanted to post this for the record.
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.
I want to set a breakpoint in unmanaged C++, in Visual Studio 2005, but I would like to ignore this breakpoint if the call stack is in a specific function. Is there a way to do this?
If you have a commercial edition of Visual Studio, you should be able to set a breakpoint early in the calling routine, then change its "When Hit..." behaviour to "Run a macro". You'll need to write a macro that programmatically disables the breakpoint in the called function -- use this as the macro to run. (Hopefully someone else can describe how such a macro can be written.) Then set other breakpoints on all exit points of the calling function, and change their behaviour to reenable the breakpoint in the called function.
If you have an Express Edition, you'll find that the "Run a macro" checkbox is greyed out unfortunately. In this case, if you have access to the source code for the calling function, I suggest the following:
Make a global int variable, bp_enabled, initially set to 1.
--bp_enabled on the first line of calling_function().
++bp_enabled at all exit points of calling_function().
Change the "Condition..." properties of the breakpoint in the called function to break only when bp_enabled == 1. (Go to Debug | Windows | Breakpoints, then right-click the breakpoint.)
A bit of a hack, but it gets the job done.
[EDIT: Fixed to work properly even if calling_function() happens to call itself recursively (either directly or indirectly)...]
You could put a DebuggerStepThrough attribute on the calling method, altho this will stop all breakpoints being hit on the calling method, rather than just the specific method
You could put breaks on all the lines that call your method in question (except in that one caller routine you don't want to stop). I can see this being difficult if the routine is called from a lot of places, or invoked in non-obvious ways.
Changing the code just for debugging seems like the easiest - if possible.
Update: OP initially didn't make it clear at the beginning unmanaged C++ was being used. So this answer is pretty useless now because it'll only work with managed code. That said I'll leave it be in case someone stumbles over it and finds it usefulor didn't know about JMC:
Whilst DebuggerStepThrough is still a valid method to prevent stepping into code there are times when you do want to step in. This means having to locate and comment out the DebuggerStepThrough attribute.
.NET 2.0 introduced a new attribute: DebuggerNonUserCode. This works in conjunction with the Debug Just My Code setting in Tools->Options->Debugging->General->Enable Just My Code.
If Enable Just My Code is checked then any method decorated with the DebuggerNonUserCode attribute won't be stepped into. If you do want to re-enable debugging of code marked with DebuggerNonUserCode periodically then just uncheck this setting. This saves some time having to locate and comment out code you'd normally not be interested in stepping through.
To use either attribute just decorate the methods of your choosing like this:
// The .NET 1.1 way
[DebuggerStepThrough]
public static void IgnoreMeAlways()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello...where is everybody!");
}
//The .NET2.0/VS2005/2008 way. Use in conjunction with Debug Just My Code
[DebuggerNonUserCode]
public static void NonUserCodeSomeTimes()
{
Console.WriteLine("Longtime no see");
}