I want to trace all the user defined functions that have been called (in order, and preferably with the input params). Is there a way to do this using gdb? OR is there a better free/opensource application out there to do this job?
Please note that I want to print only the user defined function calls.
for example:
int abc(int a, char b) {
return xyz(a+b);
}
int xyz(int theta) {
return theta * theta;
}
I need the following output:
abc(a, b);
xyz(theta);
My codebase is pretty huge and is compiled in various pieces and hence I want to avoid using a tool which needs me to compile my source code again with some options enabled.
PS: I found that there are ways where you can define functions in gdb and pass in function names as params to find out there call trace. But in my case the code base is pretty huge and I'm starting off with it, so I'm not even sure what all functions are called etc. It wouldn't be practical to list all the functions in here.
TIA,
You need to run some form of third-party tool against your binary, something like Quantify (IBM) or Callgrind, (or as #Paul R mentioned above gprof). They will generate a call tree, which will give you the information you need, google: "call tree C functions" for example, will reveal lots of goodies you can link against your code...
If you want to roll your own, you'd need to add one line to to the top of each of your functions which creates a stack allocated object and you can catch the ctor/dtor sequence to know when you've entered and exited the function and then maintain a "stack" of these to generate your own call tree... pretty easy to do (in single threaded, complex in multi-threaded)...
Related
I have a working set of TCL script plus C++ extension but I dont know exactly how it works and how was it compiled. I am using gcc and linux Arch.
It works as follows: when we execute the test.tcl script it will pass some values to an object of a class defined into the C++ extension. Using these values the extension using a macro give some result and print some graphics.
In the test.tcl scrip I have:
#!object
use_namespace myClass
proc simulate {} {
uplevel #0 {
set running 1
for {} {$running} { } {
moveBugs
draw .world.canvas
.statusbar configure -text "t:[tstep]"
}
}
}
set toroidal 1
set nx 100
set ny 100
set mv_dist 4
setup $nx $ny $mv_dist $toroidal
addBugs 100
# size of a grid cell in pixels
set scale 5
myClass.scale 5
The object.cc looks like:
#include //some includes here
MyClass myClass;
make_model(myClass); // --> this is a macro!
The Macro "make_model(myClass)" expands as follows:
namespace myClass_ns { DEFINE_MYLIB_LIBRARY; int TCL_obj_myClass
(mylib::TCL_obj_init(myClass),TCL_obj(mylib::null_TCL_obj,
(std::string)"myClass",myClass),1); };
The Class definition is:
class MyClass:
{
public:
int tstep; //timestep - updated each time moveBugs is called
int scale; //no. pixels used to represent bugs
void setup(TCL_args args) {
int nx=args, ny=args, moveDistance=args;
bool toroidal=args;
Space::setup(nx,ny,moveDistance,toroidal);
}
The whole thing creates a cell-grid with some dots (bugs) moving from one cell to another.
My questions are:
How do the class methods and variables get the script values?
How is possible to have c++ code and compile it without a main function?
What is that macro doing there in the extension and how it works??
Thanks
Whenever a command in Tcl is run, it calls a function that implements that command. That function is written in a language like C or C++, and it is passed in the arguments (either as strings or Tcl_Obj* values). A full extension will also include a function to do the library initialisation; the function (which is external, has C linkage, and which has a name like Foo_Init if your library is foo.dll) does basic setting up tasks like registering the implementation functions as commands, and it's explicit because it takes a reference to the interpreter context that is being initialised.
The implementation functions can do pretty much anything they want, but to return a result they use one of the functions Tcl_SetResult, Tcl_SetObjResult, etc. and they have to return an int containing the relevant exception code. The usual useful ones are TCL_OK (for no exception) and TCL_ERROR (for stuff's gone wrong). This is a C API, so C++ exceptions aren't allowed.
It's possible to use C++ instance methods as command implementations, provided there's a binding function in between. In particular, the function has to get the instance pointer by casting a ClientData value (an alias for void* in reality, remember this is mostly a C API) and then invoking the method on that. It's a small amount of code.
Compiling things is just building a DLL that links against the right library (or libraries, as required). While extensions are usually recommended to link against the stub library, it's not necessary when you're just developing and testing on one machine. But if you're linking against the Tcl DLL, you'd better make sure that the code gets loaded into a tclsh that uses that DLL. Stub libraries get rid of that tight binding, providing pretty strong ABI stability, but are little more work to set up; you need to define the right C macro to turn them on and you need to do an extra API call in your initialisation function.
I assume you already know how to compile and link C++ code. I won't tell you how to do it, but there's bound to be other questions here on Stack Overflow if you need assistance.
Using the code? For an extension, it's basically just:
# Dynamically load the DLL and call the init function
load /path/to/your.dll
# Commands are all present, so use them
NewCommand 3
There are some extra steps later on to turn a DLL into a proper Tcl package, abstracting code that uses the DLL away from the fact that it is exactly that DLL and so on, but they're not something to worry about until you've got things working a lot more.
Is there a way out to call a function directly from the what the user inputs ?
For example : If the user inputs greet the function named greet is called.
I don't want any cases or comparison for the call to generate.
#include <iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
void nameOfTheFunction(); // prototype
int main() {
string nameOfTheFunction;
getline(cin,nameOfTheFunction); // enter the name of Function
string newString = nameOfTheFunction + "()"; // !!!
cout << newString;
// now call the function nameOfTheFunction
}
void nameOfTheFunction() {
cout << "hello";
}
And is there a concept of generating the function at run time ?
You mean run time function generation ??
NO.
But you can use a map if you already know which all strings a user might give as input (i.e you are limiting the inputs).
For the above you can probably use std::map < std::string, boost::function <... > >
Check boost::function HERE
In short, no this isn't possible. Names in C++ get turned into memory offsets (addresses), and then the names are discarded**. At runtime C++ has no knowledge of the function or method names it's actually running.
** If debug symbols are compiled in, then the symbols are there, but impractical to get access to.
Generating a function at runtime has a lot of drawbacks (if it is possible at all) and there is generally no good reason to do it in a language like C++. You should leave that to scripting languages (like Perl or Python), many offer a eval() function that can interpret a string like script code and execute it.
If you really, really need to do have something like eval() in a compiled language such as C++, you have a few options:
Define your own scripting language and write a parser/interpreter for it (lots of work)
Define a very simple imperative or math language that can be easily parsed and evaluated using well-known design patterns (like Interpreter)
Use an existing scripting language that can be easily integrated into your code through a library (example: Lua)
Stuff the strings of code you want to execute at runtime through an external interpreter or compiler and execute them through the operating system or load them into your program using dlopen/LoadLibrary/etc.
(3.) is probably the easiest and best approach. If you want to keep external dependencies to a minimum or if you need direct access to functionality and state inside your main program, I suggest you should go for (2.) Note that you can have callbacks into your own code in that case, so calling native functions from the script is not a problem. See here for a tutorial
If you can opt for a language like Java or C#, there's also the option to use the compiler built into the runtime itself. Have a look here for how to do this in Java
I would like to write a small tool that takes a C++ program (a single .cpp file), finds the "main" function and adds 2 function calls to it, one in the beginning and one in the end.
How can this be done? Can I use g++'s parsing mechanism (or any other parser)?
If you want to make it solid, use clang's libraries.
As suggested by some commenters, let me put forward my idea as an answer:
So basically, the idea is:
... original .cpp file ...
#include <yourHeader>
namespace {
SpecialClass specialClassInstance;
}
Where SpecialClass is something like:
class SpecialClass {
public:
SpecialClass() {
firstFunction();
}
~SpecialClass() {
secondFunction();
}
}
This way, you don't need to parse the C++ file. Since you are declaring a global, its constructor will run before main starts and its destructor will run after main returns.
The downside is that you don't get to know the relative order of when your global is constructed compared to others. So if you need to guarantee that firstFunction is called
before any other constructor elsewhere in the entire program, you're out of luck.
I've heard the GCC parser is both hard to use and even harder to get at without invoking the whole toolchain. I would try the clang C/C++ parser (libparse), and the tutorials linked in this question.
Adding a function at the beginning of main() and at the end of main() is a bad idea. What if someone calls return in the middle?.
A better idea is to instantiate a class at the beginning of main() and let that class destructor do the call function you want called at the end. This would ensure that that function always get called.
If you have control of your main program, you can hack a script to do this, and that's by far the easiet way. Simply make sure the insertion points are obvious (odd comments, required placement of tokens, you choose) and unique (including outlawing general coding practices if you have to, to ensure the uniqueness you need is real). Then a dumb string hacking tool to read the source, find the unique markers, and insert your desired calls will work fine.
If the souce of the main program comes from others sources, and you don't have control, then to do this well you need a full C++ program transformation engine. You don't want to build this yourself, as just the C++ parser is an enormous effort to get right. Others here have mentioned Clang and GCC as answers.
An alternative is our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit with its C++ front end. DMS, using its C++ front end, can parse code (for a variety of C++ dialects), builds ASTs, carry out full name/type resolution to determine the meaning/definition/use of all symbols. It provides procedural and source-to-source transformations to enable changes to the AST, and can regenerate compilable source code complete with original comments.
Having used gprof and callgrind many times, I have reached the (obvious) conclusion that I cannot use them efficiently when dealing with large (as in a CAD program that loads a whole car) programs. I was thinking that maybe, I could use some C/C++ MACRO magic and somehow build a simple (but nice) logging mechanism. For example, one can call a function using the following macro:
#define CALL_FUN(fun_name, ...) \
fun_name (__VA_ARGS__);
We could add some clocking/timing stuff before and after the function call, so that every function called with CALL_FUN gets timed, e.g
#define CALL_FUN(fun_name, ...) \
time_t(&t0); \
fun_name (__VA_ARGS__); \
time_t(&t1);
The variables t0, t1 could be found in a global logging object. That logging object can also hold the calling graph for each function called through CALL_FUN. Afterwards, that object can be written in a (specifically formatted) file, and be parsed from some other program.
So here comes my (first) question: Do you find this approach tractable ? If yes, how can it be enhanced, and if not, can you propose a better way to measure time and log callgraphs ?
A collegue proposed another approach to deal with this problem, which is annotating with a specific comment each function (that we care to log). Then, during the make process, a special preprocessor must be run, parse each source file, add logging logic for each function we care to log, create a new source file with the newly added (parsing) code, and build that code instead. I guess that reading CALL_FUN... macros (my proposal) all over the place is not the best approach, and his approach would solve this problem. So what is your opinion about this approach?
PS: I am not well versed in the pitfalls of C/C++ MACROs, so if this can be developed using another approach, please say it so.
Thank you.
Well you could do some C++ magic to embed a logging object. something like
class CDebug
{
CDebug() { ... log somehow ... }
~CDebug() { ... log somehow ... }
};
in your functions then you simply write
void foo()
{
CDebug dbg;
...
you could add some debug info
dbg.heythishappened()
...
} // not dtor is called or if function is interrupted called from elsewhere.
I am bit late, but here is what I am doing for this:
On Windows there is a /Gh compiler switch which makes the compiler to insert a hidden _penter function at the start of each function. There is also a switch for getting a _pexit call at the end of each function.
You can utilizes this to get callbacks on each function call. Here is an article with more details and sample source code:
http://www.johnpanzer.com/aci_cuj/index.html
I am using this approach in my custom logging system for storing the last few thousand function calls in a ring buffer. This turned out to be useful for crash debugging (in combination with MiniDumps).
Some notes on this:
The performance impact very much depends on your callback code. You need to keep it as simple as possible.
You just need to store the function address and module base address in the log file. You can then later use the Debug Interface Access SDK to get the function name from the address (via the PDB file).
All this works suprisingly well for me.
Many nice industrial libraries have functions' declarations and definitions wrapped into void macros, just in case. If your code is already like that -- go ahead and debug your performance problems with some simple asynchronous trace logger. If no -- post-insertion of such macros can be an unacceptably time-consuming.
I can understand the pain of running an 1Mx1M matrix solver under valgrind, so I would suggest starting with so called "Monte Carlo profiling method" -- start the process and in parallel run pstack repeatedly, say each second. As a result you will have N stack dumps (N can be quite significant). Then, the mathematical approach would be to count relative frequencies of each stack and make a conclusion about the ones most frequent. In practice you either immediately see the bottleneck or, if no, you switch to bisection, gprof, and finally to valgrind's toolset.
Let me assume the reason you are doing this is you want to locate any performance problems (bottlenecks) so you can fix them to get higher performance.
As opposed to measuring speed or getting coverage info.
It seems you're thinking the way to do this is to log the history of function calls and measure how long each call takes.
There's a different approach.
It's based on the idea that mainly the program walks a big call tree.
If time is being wasted it is because the call tree is more bushy than necessary,
and during the time that's being wasted, the code that's doing the wasting is visible on the stack.
It can be terminal instructions, but more likely function calls, at almost any level of the stack.
Simply pausing the program under a debugger a few times will eventually display it.
Anything you see it doing, on more than one stack sample, if you can improve it, will speed up the program.
It works whether or not the time is being spent in CPU, I/O or anything else that consumes wall clock time.
What it doesn't show you is tons of stuff you don't need to know.
The only way it can not show you bottlenecks is if they are very small,
in which case the code is pretty near optimal.
Here's more of an explanation.
Although I think it will be hard to do anything better than gprof, you can create a special class LOG for instance and instantiate it in the beginning of each function you want to log.
class LOG {
LOG(const char* ...) {
// log time_t of the beginning of the call
}
~LOG(const char* ...) {
// calculate the total time spent,
//by difference between current time and that saved in the constructor
}
};
void somefunction() {
LOG log(__FUNCTION__, __FILE__, ...);
.. do other things
}
Now you can integrate this approach with the preprocessing one you mentioned. Just add something like this in the beginning of each function you want to log:
// ### LOG
and then you replace the string automatically in debug builds (shoudn't be hard).
May be you should use a profiler. AQTime is a relatively good one for Visual Studio. (If you have VS2010 Ultimate, you already have a profiler.)
I have a very difficult problem I'm trying to solve: Let's say I have an arbitrary instruction pointer. I need to find out if that instruction pointer resides in a specific function (let's call it "Foo").
One approach to this would be to try to find the start and ending bounds of the function and see if the IP resides in it. The starting bound is easy to find:
void *start = &Foo;
The problem is, I don't know how to get the ending address of the function (or how "long" the function is, in bytes of assembly).
Does anyone have any ideas how you would get the "length" of a function, or a completely different way of doing this?
Let's assume that there is no SEH or C++ exception handling in the function. Also note that I am on a win32 platform, and have full access to the win32 api.
This won't work. You're presuming functions are contigous in memory and that one address will map to one function. The optimizer has a lot of leeway here and can move code from functions around the image.
If you have PDB files, you can use something like the dbghelp or DIA API's to figure this out. For instance, SymFromAddr. There may be some ambiguity here as a single address can map to multiple functions.
I've seen code that tries to do this before with something like:
#pragma optimize("", off)
void Foo()
{
}
void FooEnd()
{
}
#pragma optimize("", on)
And then FooEnd-Foo was used to compute the length of function Foo. This approach is incredibly error prone and still makes a lot of assumptions about exactly how the code is generated.
Look at the *.map file which can optionally be generated by the linker when it links the program, or at the program's debug (*.pdb) file.
OK, I haven't done assembly in about 15 years. Back then, I didn't do very much. Also, it was 680x0 asm. BUT...
Don't you just need to put a label before and after the function, take their addresses, subtract them for the function length, and then just compare the IP? I've seen the former done. The latter seems obvious.
If you're doing this in C, look first for debugging support --- ChrisW is spot on with map files, but also see if your C compiler's standard library provides anything for this low-level stuff -- most compilers provide tools for analysing the stack etc., for instance, even though it's not standard. Otherwise, try just using inline assembly, or wrapping the C function with an assembly file and a empty wrapper function with those labels.
The most simple solution is maintaining a state variable:
volatile int FOO_is_running = 0;
int Foo( int par ){
FOO_is_running = 1;
/* do the work */
FOO_is_running = 0;
return 0;
}
Here's how I do it, but it's using gcc/gdb.
$ gdb ImageWithSymbols
gdb> info line * 0xYourEIPhere
Edit: Formatting is giving me fits. Time for another beer.