The question I have is:
Is there a way to call a function or do some other work whenever a crash occurs in the program.
To be specific, the code I am currently working on gives "segmentation fault" on a very large input. This means that I am accessing some unavailable\unallocated part of the memory at some point. Displaying each step would be too nasty so I want to detect when I cross my bounds.
So how could this be done?
If you compiled your code with debug symbols, you should be able to either load a core file into your debugger and/or attach a debugger when the crash occurs.
Usually, you can tell what happened from the location of the crash. Did you dereference a null pointer? Did you dereference an invalid pointer? The second one is harder to debug than the first (usually means memory corruption). A useful tool to use with memory corruptions, especially if the fault is repeatable, is to place "watch points" which causes the debugger to halt whenever a particular memory location (i.e. the pointer that causes the crash) changes. This will allow you to see what overwrote your pointer.
You really need a debugger. But to answer an original question for future searchers:
Yes, in UNIX you can just handle the SEGV signal with usual signal handling procedures.
SIGSEGV has number 13. See this on how to handle signals.
Be aware that there are system imposed limitations on what you can do in signal handler
(eg system calls are forbidden, including IO).
Also if accessing your program data await that it may be corrupt. Your program will continue to work after signal handler but it is likely it steps into another error really soon.
I would not recomment to do that in production code, but I think this feature is "unix way" enough to mention on SO
It is operating system and implementation specific. Practically also depends upon the compiler and optimization flags.
Very probably, you have hit some undefined behavior.
Probably valgrind should be a helpful tool.
If on Linux, read core(5) & proc(5) & signal(7). You might set up system-wide your /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern pseudo-file to start some external program or script (perhaps starting a debugger) on core dump.
You could even handle the SIGSEGV signal in a processor- and operating-system- specific way. But I don't recommend that. See this & that
answers for more.
On Linux, syscalls (listed in syscalls(2)) are nearly the only functions you can call inside a signal handler (more precisely, it is the async-signal-safe functions mentioned in signal(7) and nothing more). But a lot of library functions (including malloc & printf, fprintf, dlopen etc...) are forbidden inside signal handlers.
I've stumbled onto a very interesting issue where a function (has to deal with the Windows clipboard) in my app only works properly when a breakpoint is hit inside the function. This got me wondering, what exactly does the debugger do (VS2008, C++) when it hits a breakpoint?
Without directly answering your question (since I suspect the debugger's internal workings may not really be the problem), I'll offer two possible reasons this might occur that I've seen before:
First, your program does pause when it hits a breakpoint, and often that delay is enough time for something to happen (perhaps in another thread or another process) that has to happen before your function will work. One easy way to verify this is to add a pause for a few seconds beforehand and run the program normally. If that works, you'll have to look for a more reliable way of finding the problem.
Second, Visual Studio has historically (I'm not certain about 2008) over-allocated memory when running in debug mode. So, for example, if you have an array of int[10] allocated, it should, by rights, get 40 bytes of memory, but Visual Studio might give it 44 or more, presumably in case you have an out-of-bounds error. Of course, if you DO have an out-of-bounds error, this over-allocation might make it appear to be working anyway.
Typically, for software breakpoints, the debugger places an interrupt instruction at the location you set the breakpoint at. This transfers control of the program to the debugger's interrupt handler, and from there you're in a world where the debugger can decide what to do (present you with a command prompt, print the stack and continue, what have you.)
On a related note, "This works in the debugger but not when I run without a breakpoint" suggests to me that you have a race condition. So if your app is multithreaded, consider examining your locking discipline.
It might be a timing / thread synchronization issue. Do you do any multimedia or multithreading stuff in your program?
The reason your app only works properly when a breakpoint is hit might be that you have some watches with side effects still in your watch list from previous debugging sessions. When you hit the break point, the watch is executed and your program behaves differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debugger
A debugger essentially allows you to step through your source code and examine how the code is working. If you set a breakpoint, and run in debug mode, your code will pause at that break point and allow you to step into the code. This has some distinct advantages. First, you can see what the status of your variables are in memory. Second, it allows you to make sure your code is doing what you expect it to do without having to do a whole ton of print statements. And, third, it let's you make sure the logic is working the way you expect it to work.
Edit: A debugger is one of the more valuable tools in my development toolbox, and I'd recommend that you learn and understand how to use the tool to improve your development process.
I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more information.
The debugger just halts execution of your program when it hits a breakpoint. If your program is working okay when it hits the breakpoint, but doesn't work without the breakpoint, that would indicate to me that you have a race condition or another threading issue in your code. The breakpoint is stopping the execution of your code, perhaps allowing another process to complete normally?
It stops the program counter for your process (the one you are debugging), and shows the current value of your variables, and uses the value of your variables at the moment to calculate expressions.
You must take into account, that if you edit some variable value when you hit a breakpoint, you are altering your process state, so it may behave differently.
Debugging is possible because the compiler inserts debugging information (such as function names, variable names, etc) into your executable. Its possible not to include this information.
Debuggers sometimes change the way the program behaves in order to work properly.
I'm not sure about Visual Studio but in Eclipse for example. Java classes are not loaded the same when ran inside the IDE and when ran outside of it.
You may also be having a race condition and the debugger stops one of the threads so when you continue the program flow it's at the right conditions.
More info on the program might help.
On Windows there is another difference caused by the debugger. When your program is launched by the debugger, Windows will use a different memory manager (heap manager to be exact) for your program. Instead of the default heap manager your program will now get the debug heap manager, which differs in the following points:
it initializes allocated memory to a pattern (0xCDCDCDCD comes to mind but I could be wrong)
it fills freed memory with another pattern
it overallocates heap allocations (like a previous answer mentioned)
All in all it changes the memory use patterns of your program so if you have a memory thrashing bug somewhere its behavior might change.
Two useful tricks:
Use PageHeap to catch memory accesses beyond the end of allocated blocks
Build using the /RTCsu (older Visual C++ compilers: /GX) switch. This will initialize the memory for all your local variables to a nonzero bit pattern and will also throw a runtime error when an unitialized local variable is accessed.
Background
I have an application with a Poof-Crash[1]. I'm fairly certain it is due to a blown stack.
The application is Multi-Threaded.
I am compiling with "Enable C++ Exceptions: Yes With SEH Exceptions (/EHa)".
I have written an SE Translator function and called _set_se_translator() with it.
I have written functions for and setup set_terminate() and set_unexpected().
To get the Stack Overflow, I must run in release mode, under heavy load, for several days. Running under a debugger is not an option as the application can't perform fast enough to achieve the runtime necessary to see the issue.
I can simulate the issue by adding infinite recursion on execution of one of the functions, and thus test the catching of the EXCEPTION_STACK_OVERFLOW exception.
I have WinDBG setup as the crash dump program, and get good information for all other crash issues but not this one. The crash dump will only contain one thread, which is 'Sleep()'ing. All other threads have exited.
The Question
None of the things I've tried has resulted in picking up the EXCEPTION_STACK_OVERFLOW exception.
Does anyone know how to guarantee getting a a chance at this exception during runtime in release mode?
Definitions
Poof-Crash: The application crashes by going "poof" and disappearing without a trace.
(Considering the name of this site, I'm kind of surprised this question isn't on here already!)
Notes
An answer was posted briefly about adjusting the stack size to potentially force the issue sooner and allow catching it with a debugger. That is a clever thought, but unfortunately, I don't believe it would help. The issue is likely caused by a corner case leading to infinite recursion. Shortening the stack would not expose the issue any sooner and would likely cause an unrelated crash in validly deep code. Nice idea though, and thanks for posting it, even if you did remove it.
Everything prior to windows xp would not (or would be harder) generally be able to trap stack overflows. With the advent of xp, you can set vectored exception handler that gets a chance at stack overflow prior to any stack-based (structured exception) handlers (this is being the very reason - structured exception handlers are stack-based).
But there's really not much you can do even if you're able to trap such an exception.
In his blog, cbrumme (sorry, do not have his/her real name) discusses a stack page neighboring the guard page (the one, that generates the stack overflow) that can potentially be used for backout. If you can squeeze your backout code to use just one stack page - you can free as much as your logic allows. Otherwise, the application is pretty much dead upon encountering stack overflow. The only other reasonable thing to do, having trapped it, is to write a dump file for later debugging.
Hope, it helps.
I'm not convinced that you're on the right track in diagnosing this as a stack overflow.
But in any case, the fact that you're getting a poof!, plus what you're seeing in WinDbg
The crash dump will only contain one thread, which is 'Sleep()'ing. All other threads have exited.
suggests to me that somebody has called the C RTL exit() function, or possibly called the Windows API TerminateProcess() directly. That could have something to do with your interrupt handlers or not. Maybe something in the exception handling logic has a re-entrance check and arbitrarily decides to exit() if it's reentered.
My suggestion is to patch your executables to put maybe an INT 3 debug at the entry point to exit (), if it's statically linked, or if it's dynamically linked, patch up the import and also patch up any imports of kernel32::TerminateProcess to throw a DebugBreak() instead.
Of course, exit() and/or TerminateProcess() may be called on a normal shutdown, too, so you'll have to filter out the false alarms, but if you can get the call stack for the case where it's just about to go proof, you should have what you need.
EDIT ADD: Just simply writing your own version of exit() and linking it in instead of the CRTL version might do the trick.
I remember code from a previous workplace that sounded similar having explicit bounds checks on the stack pointer and throwing an exception manually.
It's been a while since I've touched C++ though, and even when I did touch it I didn't know what I was doing, so caveat implementor about portability/reliability of said advice.
Have you considered ADPlus from Debugging Tools for Windows?
ADPlus attaches the CDB debugger to a process in "crash" mode and will generate crash dumps for most exceptions the process generates. Basically, you run "ADPlus -crash -p yourPIDhere", it performs an invasive attach and begins logging.
Given your comment above about running under a debugger, I just wanted to add that CDB adds virtually zero overhead in -crash mode on a decent (dual-core, 2GB RAM) machine, so don't let that hold you back from trying it.
You can generate debugging symbols without disabling optimizations. In fact, you should be doing that anyways. It just makes debugging harder.
And the documentation for _set_se_translator says that each thread has its own SE translator. Are you setting one for each thread?
set_unexpected is probably a no-op, at least according to the VS 2005 documentation. And each thread also has its own terminate handler, so you should install that per thread as well.
I would also strongly recommend NOT using SE translation. It takes hardware exceptions that you shouldn't ignore (i.e., you should really log an error and terminate) and turns them into something you can ignore (C++ exceptions). If you want to catch this kind of error, use a __try/__except handler.
I've got a "Schroedinger's Cat" type of problem here -- my program (actually the test suite for my program, but a program nonetheless) is crashing, but only when built in release mode, and only when launched from the command line. Through caveman debugging (ie, nasty printf() messages all over the place), I have determined the test method where the code is crashing, though unfortunately the actual crash seems to happen in some destructor, since the last trace messages I see are in other destructors which execute cleanly.
When I attempt to run this program inside of Visual Studio, it doesn't crash. Same goes when launching from WinDbg.exe. The crash only occurs when launching from the command line. This is happening under Windows Vista, btw, and unfortunately I don't have access to an XP machine right now to test on.
It would be really nice if I could get Windows to print out a stack trace, or something other than simply terminating the program as if it had exited cleanly. Does anyone have any advice as to how I could get some more meaningful information here and hopefully fix this bug?
Edit: The problem was indeed caused by an out-of-bounds array, which I describe more in this post. Thanks everybody for your help in finding this problem!
In 100% of the cases I've seen or heard of, where a C or C++ program runs fine in the debugger but fails when run outside, the cause has been writing past the end of a function local array. (The debugger puts more on the stack, so you're less likely to overwrite something important.)
When I have encountered problems like this before it has generally been due to variable initialization. In debug mode, variables and pointers get initialized to zero automatically but in release mode they do not. Therefore, if you have code like this
int* p;
....
if (p == 0) { // do stuff }
In debug mode the code in the if is not executed but in release mode p contains an undefined value, which is unlikely to be 0, so the code is executed often causing a crash.
I would check your code for uninitialized variables. This can also apply to the contents of arrays.
No answer so far has tried to give a serious overview about the available techniques for debugging release applications:
Release and Debug builds behave differently for many reasons. Here is an excellent overview. Each of these differences might cause a bug in the Release build that doesn't exist in the Debug build.
The presence of a debugger may change the behavior of a program too, both for release and debug builds. See this answer. In short, at least the Visual Studio Debugger uses the Debug Heap automatically when attached to a program. You can turn the debug heap off by using environment variable _NO_DEBUG_HEAP . You can specify this either in your computer properties, or in the Project Settings in Visual Studio. That might make the crash reproducible with the debugger attached.
More on debugging heap corruption here.
If the previous solution doesn't work, you need to catch the unhandled exception and attach a post-mortem debugger the instance the crash occurs. You can use e.g. WinDbg for this, details about the avaiable post-mortem debuggers and their installation at MSDN
You can improve your exception handling code and if this is a production application, you should:
a. Install a custom termination handler using std::set_terminate
If you want to debug this problem locally, you could run an endless loop inside the termination handler and output some text to the console to notify you that std::terminate has been called. Then attach the debugger and check the call stack. Or you print the stack trace as described in this answer.
In a production application you might want to send an error report back home, ideally together with a small memory dump that allows you to analyze the problem as described here.
b. Use Microsoft's structured exception handling mechanism that allows you to catch both hardware and software exceptions. See MSDN. You could guard parts of your code using SEH and use the same approach as in a) to debug the problem. SEH gives more information about the exception that occurred that you could use when sending an error report from a production app.
Things to look out for:
Array overruns - the visual studio debugger inserts padding which may stop crashes.
Race conditions - do you have multiple threads involved if so a race condition many only show up when an application is executed directly.
Linking - is your release build pulling in the correct libraries.
Things to try:
Minidump - really easy to use (just look it up in msdn) will give you a full crash dump for each thread. You just load the output into visual studio and it is as if you were debugging at the time of the crash.
You can set WinDbg as your postmortem debugger. This will launch the debugger and attach it to the process when the crash occurs. To install WinDbg for postmortem debugging, use the /I option (note it is capitalized):
windbg /I
More details here.
As to the cause, it's most probably an unitialized variable as the other answers suggest.
After many hours of debugging, I finally found the cause of the problem, which was indeed caused by a buffer overflow, caused a single byte difference:
char *end = static_cast<char*>(attr->data) + attr->dataSize;
This is a fencepost error (off-by-one error) and was fixed by:
char *end = static_cast<char*>(attr->data) + attr->dataSize - 1;
The weird thing was, I put several calls to _CrtCheckMemory() around various parts of my code, and they always returned 1. I was able to find the source of the problem by placing "return false;" calls in the test case, and then eventually determining through trial-and-error where the fault was.
Thanks everybody for your comments -- I learned a lot about windbg.exe today! :)
Even though you have built your exe as a release one, you can still generate PDB (Program database) files that will allow you to stack trace, and do a limited amount of variable inspection.
In your build settings there is an option to create the PDB files. Turn this on and relink. Then try running from the IDE first to see if you get the crash. If so, then great - you're all set to look at things. If not, then when running from the command line you can do one of two things:
Run EXE, and before the crash do an Attach To Process (Tools menu on Visual Studio).
After the crash, select the option to launch debugger.
When asked to point to PDB files, browse to find them. If the PDB's were put in the same output folder as your EXE or DLL's they will probably be picked up automatically.
The PDB's provide a link to the source with enough symbol information to make it possible to see stack traces, variables etc. You can inspect the values as normal, but do be aware that you can get false readings as the optimisation pass may mean things only appear in registers, or things happen in a different order than you expect.
NB: I'm assuming a Windows/Visual Studio environment here.
Crashes like this are almost always caused because an IDE will usually set the contents of uninitialized variable to zeros, null or some other such 'sensible' value, whereas when running natively you'll get whatever random rubbish that the system picks up.
Your error is therefore almost certainly that you are using something like you are using a pointer before it has been properly initialized and you're getting away with it in the IDE because it doesn't point anywhere dangerous - or the value is handled by your error checking - but in release mode it does something nasty.
In order to have a crash dump that you can analyze:
Generate pdb files for your code.
You rebase to have your exe and dlls loaded in the same address.
Enable post mortem debugger such as Dr. Watson
Check the crash failures address using a tool such as crash finder.
You should also check out the tools in Debugging tools for windows.
You can monitor the application and see all the first chance exceptions that were prior to your second chance exception.
Hope it helps...
Sometimes this happens because you have wrapped important operation inside "assert" macro. As you may know, "assert" evaluates expressions only on debug mode.
A great way to debug an error like this is to enable optimizations for your debug build.
Once i had a problem when app behaved similarily to yours. It turned out to be a nasty buffer overrun in sprintf. Naturally, it worked when run with a debugger attached. What i did, was to install an unhandled exception filter (SetUnhandledExceptionFilter) in which i simply blocked infinitely (using WaitForSingleObject on a bogus handle with a timeout value of INFINITE).
So you could something along the lines of:
long __stdcall MyFilter(EXCEPTION_POINTERS *)
{
HANDLE hEvt=::CreateEventW(0,1,0,0);
if(hEvt)
{
if(WAIT_FAILED==::WaitForSingleObject(hEvt, INFINITE))
{
//log failure
}
}
}
// somewhere in your wmain/WinMain:
SetUnhandledExceptionFilter(MyFilter);
I then attached the debugger after the bug had manifested itself (gui program stopped responding).
Then you can either take a dump and work with it later:
.dump /ma path_to_dump_file
Or debug it right away. The simplest way is to track where processor context has been saved by the runtime exception handling machinery:
s-d esp Range 1003f
Command will search stack address space for CONTEXT record(s) provided the length of search. I usually use something like 'l?10000'. Note, do not use unsually large numbers as the record you're after usually near to the unhanded exception filter frame.
1003f is the combination of flags (i believe it corresponds to CONTEXT_FULL) used to capture the processor state.
Your search would look similar to this:
0:000> s-d esp l1000 1003f
0012c160 0001003f 00000000 00000000 00000000 ?...............
Once you get results back, use the address in the cxr command:
.cxr 0012c160
This will take you to this new CONTEXT, exactly at the time of crash (you will get exactly the stack trace at the time your app crashed).
Additionally, use:
.exr -1
to find out exactly which exception had occurred.
Hope it helps.
With regard to your problems getting diagnostic information, have you tried using adplus.vbs as an alternative to WinDbg.exe? To attach to a running process, use
adplus.vbs -crash -p <process_id>
Or to start the application in the event that the crash happens quickly:
adplus.vbs -crash -sc your_app.exe
Full info on adplus.vbs can be found at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/286350
Ntdll.dll with debugger attached
One little know difference between launching a program from the IDE or WinDbg as opposed to launching it from command line / desktop is that when launching with a debugger attached (i.e. IDE or WinDbg) ntdll.dll uses a different heap implementation which performs some little validation on the memory allocation/freeing.
You may read some relevant information in unexpected user breakpoint in ntdll.dll. One tool which might be able to help you identifying the problem is PageHeap.exe.
Crash analysis
You did not write what is the "crash" you are experiencing. Once the program crashes and offers you to send the error information to the Microsoft, you should be able to click on the technical information and to check at least the exception code, and with some effort you can even perform post-mortem analysis (see Heisenbug: WinApi program crashes on some computers) for instructions)
Vista SP1 actually has a really nice crash dump generator built into the system. Unfortunately, it isn't turned on by default!
See this article:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb787181(VS.85).aspx
The benefit of this approach is that no extra software needs to be installed on the affected system. Grip it and rip it, baby!
As my experience, that are most being memory corruption issues.
For example :
char a[8];
memset(&a[0], 0, 16);
: /*use array a doing some thing */
it is very possible to be normal in debug mode when one runs the code.
But in release, that would/might be crash.
For me, to rummage where the memory is out of bound is too toilsome.
Use some tools like Visual Leak Detector (windows) or valgrind (linux) are more wise choise.
I've seen a lot of right answers. However, there is none that helped me. In my case, there was a wrong usage of the SSE instructions with the unaligned memory. Take a look at your math library (if you use one), and try to disable SIMD support, recompile and reproduce the crash.
Example:
A project includes mathfu, and uses the classes with STL vector: std::vector< mathfu::vec2 >. Such usage will probably cause a crash at the time of the construction of mathfu::vec2 item since the STL default allocator does not guarantee required 16-byte alignment. In this case to prove the idea, one can define #define MATHFU_COMPILE_WITHOUT_SIMD_SUPPORT 1 before each include of the mathfu, recompile in Release configuration and check again.
The Debug and RelWithDebInfo configurations worked well for my project, but not the Release one. The reason behind this behavior is probably because debugger processes allocation/deallocation requests and does some memory bookkeeping to check and verify the accesses to the memory.
I experienced the situation in Visual Studio 2015 and 2017 environments.
Something similar happend to me once with GCC. It turned out to be a too aggressive optimization that was enabled only when creating the final release and not during the development process.
Well, to tell the truth it was my fault, not gcc's, as I didn't noticed that my code was relying on the fact that that particular optimization wouldn't have been done.
It took me a lot of time to trace it and I only came to it because I asked on a newsgroup and somebody made me think about it. So, let me return the favour just in case this is happening to you as well.
I've found this this article useful for your scenario. ISTR the compiler options were a little out of date. Look around your Visual Studio project options to see how to generate pdb files for your release build, etc.
It's suspicious that it would happen outside the debugger and not inside; running in the debugger does not normally change the application behavior. I would check the environment differences between the console and the IDE. Also, obviously, compile release without optimizations and with debug information, and see if that affects the behavior. Finally, check out the post-mortem debugging tools other people have suggested here, usually you can get some clue from them.
Debugging release builds can be a pain due to optimizations changing the order in which lines of your code appear to be executed. It can really get confusing!
One technique to at least narrow down the problem is to use MessageBox() to display quick statements stating what part of the program your code has got to ("Starting Foo()", "Starting Foo2()"); start putting them at the top of functions in the area of your code that you suspect (what were you doing at the time when it crashed?). When you can tell which function, change the message boxes to blocks of code or even individual lines within that function until you narrow it down to a few lines. Then you can start printing out the value of variables to see what state they are in at the point of crashing.
Try using _CrtCheckMemory() to see what state the allocated memory is in .
If everything goes well , _CrtCheckMemory returns TRUE , else FALSE .
You might run your software with Global Flags enabled (Look in Debugging Tools for Windows). It will very often help to nail the problem.
Make your program generate a mini dump when the exception occurs, then open it up in a debugger (for example, in WinDbg). The key functions to look at: MiniDumpWriteDump, SetUnhandledExceptionFilter
Here's a case I had that somebody might find instructive. It only crashed in release in Qt Creator - not in debug. I was using .ini files (as I prefer apps that can be copied to other drives, vs. ones that lose their settings if the Registry gets corrupted). This applies to any apps that store their settings under the apps' directory tree. If the debug and release builds are under different directories, you can have a setting that's different between them, too. I had preference checked in one that wasn't checked in the other. It turned out to be the source of my crash. Good thing I found it.
I hate to say it, but I only diagnosed the crash in MS Visual Studio Community Edition; after having VS installed, letting my app crash in Qt Creator, and choosing to open it in Visual Studio's debugger. While my Qt app had no symbol info, it turns out that the Qt libraries had some. It led me to the offending line; since I could see what method was being called. (Still, I think Qt is a convenient, powerful, & cross-platform LGPL framework.)
I had this problem too. In my case, the RELEASE mode was having msvscrtd.dll in the linker definition. We removed it and the issue resolved.
Alternatively, adding /NODEFAULTLIB to the linker command line arguments also resolved the issue.
I'll add another possibility for future readers: Check if you're logging to stderr or stdout from an application with no console window (ie you linked with /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS). This can crash.
I had a GUI application where I logged to both stderr and a file in both debug and release, so logging was always enabled. I created a console window in debug for easy viewing of the logs, but not in release. However, if the VS debugger is attached to the release build, it'll automatically pipe stderr to the VS output window. So only in release with no debugger did it actually crash when I wrote to stderr.
To make things worse, printf debugging obviously didn't work, which I didn't understand why until I'd tracked down the root cause (by painfully bisecting the codebase by inserting an infinite loop in various spots).
I had this error and vs crashed even when trying to !clean! my project. So I deleted the obj files manually from the Release directory, and after that it built just fine.
I agree with Rolf. Because reproducibility is so important, you shouldn't have a non-debug mode. All your builds should be debuggable. Having two targets to debug more than doubles your debugging load. Just ship the "debug mode" version, unless it is unusable. In which case, make it usable.