how to find unused functions in a c++ project vc2008
I always use "/OPT:REF" when creating release versions. This flag removes all unreferenced functions and will reduce the final binary substantially if there are many functions not being used (in our case we have a kernel with loads of methods used differently from different customized applications).
The "/VERBOSE" will send information about the linking session to the output window, or to stdout if you are linking on the command line. In the latter you can always redirect this to a file.
Using both flags together will make the output contain all eliminated functions and/or data that is never referenced.
Cheers!
Select "Run code Analysis on 'your project name'" from the Analyze/Build menu (according to your VS edition), VS will show a warning if there is an unused functions.
You should be able to use link.exe with /map and /mapinfo to generate a map file that tells you which functions aren't called.
Related
I'm working on a code base that uses quite a bit of conditional compilation via macros passed as arguments to the compiler (i.e. gcc -DMACRO_HERE file.cpp). I would like to have a way to get a list of all the macros defined this way within the code so that I can write out all the used macros to the console and save files when the application is run, that way we know exactly what build was used.
I also need to do the same thing with the git hash but I think I can do that easily with a macro.
Edit 1: Note that this is not the same question as GCC dump preprocessor defines since I want the list available within the program and I only want the macros that are declared by being passed to the compiler with the -D argument
Edit 2: I also need it be cross compiler compatible since we use GCC, XL, CCE, CLANG, NVCC, HIP, and the MPI versions of those. Note that we're building with Make
Here's an outline of a possible solution.
The request is not well-specified because there is no guarantee that all object files will be built with the same conditional macros. So let's say that you want to capture the conditional macros specified for some designated source file.
On that basis, we can play a build trick, easy to do with make: the build recipe for that designated source file actually invokes a script, by inserting the path to the script at the beginning of the compile line.
The script runs through its arguments, selects the ones which start -D, and uses them to create a simple C source file which defines an array const char* build_options[], populating it with stringified versions of the command line arguments. (Unless you're a perfectionist, you don't need to do heroics to correctly escape the strings, because no sane build configuration would use -D arguments which require heroic escaping.)
Once the source file is built, the script saves it and either uses the command-line it was passed as its arguments to compile it, or leaves it to be compiled by some later build step.
Linker question:
if I had a file. c that has no includes at all, would we still need a linker?
Although the linker is so-named because it links together multiple object files, it performs other functions as well. It may resolve addresses that were left incomplete by the compiler. It produces a program in an executable file format that the system’s program loader can read and load, and that format may differ from that of object modules. Specifics depend on the operating system and build tools.
Further, to have a complete program in one source file, you must provide not just the main routine you are familiar with from C and C++ but also the true start of the program, the entry point that the program loader starts execution at, and you must provide implementations for all functions you use in the program, such as invocations of system services via special trap or system-call instructions to read and write data.
You can create a project, which has no typical C startup code, in which case, you may not even have a main(). However, you still need a linker, because the linker creates the required executable file format for the given architecture.
It also will set the entrypoint, where the actual execution starts.
So you can omit the standard libraries, and create a binary, which is completly void of any C functions, but you still need the linker to actually make a runable binary.
The object file format, generated by the compiler, is very different to the executable file format, because it only provides all information, that is required for the linker.
Yes. The linker does more than merely link the files. Check out this resource for more info: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/Programming_Languages/C%2B%2B/Code/Compiler/Linker#:~:text=The%20linker%20is%20a%20program,translation%20unit%20have%20external%20linkage.
Believe it or not, multiple libraries can be referenced by default. So, even if you don't #includea resource, the compiler may have to internally link or reference something outside of the translation unit. There are also redundancies and other considerations that are "eliminated" by the compiler.
Despite its name the linker is properly a "linker/locater". It performs two functions - 1) linking object code, 2) determining where in memory the data and code elements exist.
The object code out of the compiler is not "located" even if it has no unresolved links.
Also even if you have the simplest possible valid code:
int main(){ return 0; }
with no includes, the linker will normally implicitly link the C runtime start-up, which is required to do everything necessary before running main(). That may be very little. On some target such as ARM Cortex-M you can in fact run C code directly from the reset vector so long as you don't assume static initialisation or complete library support. So it is possible to write the reset code entirely in C, but you probably still need code to initialise the vector table with the reset handler (your C start-up function) and the initial stack pointer. On Cortex-M that can be done using in-line assembler perhaps, but it is all rather cumbersome and unnecessary and does not forgo the linker.
From what I can tell you can kick off all the action in a constructor when you create a global object. So do you really need a main() function in C++ or is it just legacy?
I can understand that it could be considered bad practice to do so. I'm just asking out of curiosity.
If you want to run your program on a hosted C++ implementation, you need a main function. That's just how things are defined. You can leave it empty if you want of course. On the technical side of things, the linker wants to resolve the main symbol that's used in the runtime library (which has no clue of your special intentions to omit it - it just still emits a call to it). If the Standard specified that main is optional, then of course implementations could come up with solutions, but that would need to happen in a parallel universe.
If you go with the "Execution starts in the constructor of my global object", beware that you set yourself up to many problems related to the order of constructions of namespace scope objects defined in different translation units (So what is the entry point? The answer is: You will have multiple entry points, and what entry point is executed first is unspecified!). In C++03 you aren't even guaranteed that cout is properly constructed (in C++0x you have a guarantee that it is, before any code tries to use it, as long as there is a preceeding include of <iostream>).
You don't have those problems and don't need to work around them (wich can be very tricky) if you properly start executing things in ::main.
As mentioned in the comments, there are however several systems that hide main from the user by having him tell the name of a class which is instantiated within main. This works similar to the following example
class MyApp {
public:
MyApp(std::vector<std::string> const& argv);
int run() {
/* code comes here */
return 0;
};
};
IMPLEMENT_APP(MyApp);
To the user of this system, it's completely hidden that there is a main function, but that macro would actually define such a main function as follows
#define IMPLEMENT_APP(AppClass) \
int main(int argc, char **argv) { \
AppClass m(std::vector<std::string>(argv, argv + argc)); \
return m.run(); \
}
This doesn't have the problem of unspecified order of construction mentioned above. The benefit of them is that they work with different forms of higher level entry points. For example, Windows GUI programs start up in a WinMain function - IMPLEMENT_APP could then define such a function instead on that platform.
Yes! You can do away with main.
Disclaimer: You asked if it were possible, not if it should be done. This is a totally un-supported, bad idea. I've done this myself, for reasons that I won't get into, but I am not recommending it. My purpose wasn't getting rid of main, but it can do that as well.
The basic steps are as follows:
Find crt0.c in your compiler's CRT source directory.
Add crt0.c to your project (a copy, not the original).
Find and remove the call to main from crt0.c.
Getting it to compile and link can be difficult; How difficult depends on which compiler and which compiler version.
Added
I just did it with Visual Studio 2008, so here are the exact steps you have to take to get it to work with that compiler.
Create a new C++ Win32 Console Application (click next and check Empty Project).
Add new item.. C++ File, but name it crt0.c (not .cpp).
Copy contents of C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\crt\src\crt0.c and paste into crt0.c.
Find mainret = _tmain(__argc, _targv, _tenviron); and comment it out.
Right-click on crt0.c and select Properties.
Set C/C++ -> General -> Additional Include Directories = "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\crt\src".
Set C/C++ -> Preprocessor -> Preprocessor Definitions = _CRTBLD.
Click OK.
Right-click on the project name and select Properties.
Set C/C++ -> Code Generation -> Runtime Library = Multi-threaded Debug (/MTd) (*).
Click OK.
Add new item.. C++ File, name it whatever (app.cpp for this example).
Paste the code below into app.cpp and run it.
(*) You can't use the runtime DLL, you have to statically link to the runtime library.
#include <iostream>
class App
{
public: App()
{
std::cout << "Hello, World! I have no main!" << std::endl;
}
};
static App theApp;
Added
I removed the superflous exit call and the blurb about lifetime as I think we're all capable of understanding the consequences of removing main.
Ultra Necro
I just came across this answer and read both it and John Dibling's objections below. It was apparent that I didn't explain what the above procedure does and why that does indeed remove main from the program entirely.
John asserts that "there is always a main" in the CRT. Those words are not strictly correct, but the spirit of the statement is. Main is not a function provided by the CRT, you must add it yourself. The call to that function is in the CRT provided entry point function.
The entry point of every C/C++ program is a function in a module named 'crt0'. I'm not sure if this is a convention or part of the language specification, but every C/C++ compiler I've come across (which is a lot) uses it. This function basically does three things:
Initialize the CRT
Call main
Tear down
In the example above, the call is _tmain but that is some macro magic to allow for the various forms that 'main' can have, some of which are VS specific in this case.
What the above procedure does is it removes the module 'crt0' from the CRT and replaces it with a new one. This is why you can't use the Runtime DLL, there is already a function in that DLL with the same entry point name as the one we are adding (2). When you statically link, the CRT is a collection of .lib files, and the linker allows you to override .lib modules entirely. In this case a module with only one function.
Our new program contains the stock CRT, minus its CRT0 module, but with a CRT0 module of our own creation. In there we remove the call to main. So there is no main anywhere!
(2) You might think you could use the runtime DLL by renaming the entry point function in your crt0.c file, and changing the entry point in the linker settings. However, the compiler is unaware of the entry point change and the DLL contains an external reference to a 'main' function which you're not providing, so it would not compile.
Generally speaking, an application needs an entry point, and main is that entry point. The fact that initialization of globals might happen before main is pretty much irrelevant. If you're writing a console or GUI app you have to have a main for it to link, and it's only good practice to have that routine be responsible for the main execution of the app rather than use other features for bizarre unintended purposes.
Well, from the perspective of the C++ standard, yes, it's still required. But I suspect your question is of a different nature than that.
I think doing it the way you're thinking about would cause too many problems though.
For example, in many environments the return value from main is given as the status result from running the program as a whole. And that would be really hard to replicate from a constructor. Some bit of code could still call exit of course, but that seems like using a goto and would skip destruction of anything on the stack. You could try to fix things up by having a special exception you threw instead in order to generate an exit code other than 0.
But then you still run into the problem of the order of execution of global constructors not being defined. That means that in any particular constructor for a global object you won't be able to make any assumptions about whether or not any other global object yet exists.
You could try to solve the constructor order problem by just saying each constructor gets its own thread, and if you want to access any other global objects you have to wait on a condition variable until they say they're constructed. That's just asking for deadlocks though, and those deadlocks would be really hard to debug. You'd also have the issue of which thread exiting with the special 'return value from the program' exception would constitute the real return value of the program as a whole.
I think those two issues are killers if you want to get rid of main.
And I can't think of a language that doesn't have some basic equivalent to main. In Java, for example, there is an externally supplied class name who's main static function is called. In Python, there's the __main__ module. In perl there's the script you specify on the command line.
If you have more than one global object being constructed, there is no guarantee as to which constructor will run first.
If you are building static or dynamic library code then you don't need to define main yourself, but you will still wind up running in some program that has it.
If you are coding for windows, do not do this.
Running your app entirely from within the constructor of a global object may work just fine for quite awhile, but sooner or later you will make a call to the wrong function and end up with a program that terminates without warning.
Global object constructors run during the startup of the C runtime.
The C runtime startup code runs during the DLLMain of the C runtime DLL
During DLLMain, you are holding the DLL loader lock.
Tring to load another DLL while already holding the DLL loader lock results in a swift death for your process.
Compiling your entire app into a single executable won't save you - many Win32 calls have the potential to quietly load system DLLs.
There are implementations where global objects are not possible, or where non-trivial constructors are not possible for such objects (especially in the mobile and embedded realms).
I have a 3rd party source code that I have to investigate. I want to see in what order the functions are called but I don't want to waste my time typing:
printf("Entered into %s", __FUNCTION__)
and
printf("Exited from %s", __FUNCTION__)
for each function, nor do I want to touch any source file.
Do you have any suggestions? Is there a compiler flag that automagically does this for me?
Clarifications to the comments:
I will cross-compile the source to run it on ARM.
I will compile it with gcc.
I don't want to analyze the static code. I want to trace the runtime. So doxygen will not make my life easier.
I have the source and I can compile it.
I don't want to use Aspect Oriented Programming.
EDIT:
I found that 'frame' command in the gdb prompt prints the current frame (or, function name, you could say) at that point in time. Perhaps, it is possible (using gdb scripts) to call 'frame' command everytime a function is called. What do you think?
Besides the usual debugger and aspect-oriented programming techniques, you can also inject your own instrumentation functions using gcc's -finstrument-functions command line options. You'll have to implement your own __cyg_profile_func_enter() and __cyg_profile_func_exit() functions (declare these as extern "C" in C++).
They provide a means to track what function was called from where. However, the interface is a bit difficult to use since the address of the function being called and its call site are passed instead of a function name, for example. You could log the addresses, and then pull the corresponding names from the symbol table using something like objdump --syms or nm, assuming of course the symbols haven't been stripped from the binaries in question.
It may just be easier to use gdb. YMMV. :)
You said "nor do I want to touch any source file"... fair game if you let a script do it for you?
Run this on all your .cpp files
sed 's/^{/{ENTRY/'
So that it transforms them into this:
void foo()
{ENTRY
// code here
}
Put this in a header that can be #included by every unit:
#define ENTRY EntryRaiiObject obj ## __LINE__ (__FUNCTION__);
struct EntryRaiiObject {
EntryRaiiObject(const char *f) : f_(f) { printf("Entered into %s", f_); }
~EntryRaiiObject() { printf("Exited from %s", f_); }
const char *f_;
};
You may have to get fancier with the sed script. You can also put the ENTRY macro anywhere else you want to probe, like some deeply nested inner scope of a function.
Use /Gh (Enable _penter Hook Function) and /GH (Enable _pexit Hook Function) compiler switches (if you can compile the sources ofcourse)
NOTE: you won't be able to use those macro's. See here ("you will need to get the function address (in EIP register) and compare it against addresses in the map file that can be generated by the linker (assuming no rebasing has occurred). It'll be very slow though.")
If you're using gcc, the magic compiler flag is -g. Compile with debugging symbols, run the program under gdb, and generate stack traces. You could also use ptrace, but it's probably a lot easier to just use gdb.
Agree with William, use gdb to see the run time flow.
There are some static code analyzer which can tell which functions call which and can give you some call flow graph. One tool is "Understand C++" (support C/C++) but thats not free i guess. But you can find similar tools.
Whilst refactoring some old code I realised that a particular header file was full of function declarations for functions long since removed from the .cpp file. Does anyone know of a tool that could find (and strip) these automatically?
You could if possible make a test.cpp file to call them all, the linker will flag the ones that have no code as unresolved, this way your test code only need compile and not worry about actually running.
PC-lint can be tunned for dedicated purpose:
I tested the following code against for your question:
void foo(int );
int main()
{
return 0;
}
lint.bat test_unused.cpp
and got the following result:
============================================================
--- Module: test_unused.cpp (C++)
--- Wrap-up for Module: test_unused.cpp
Info 752: local declarator 'foo(int)' (line 2, file test_unused.cpp) not referenced
test_unused.cpp(2) : Info 830: Location cited in prior message
============================================================
So you can pass the warning number 752 for your puropse:
lint.bat -"e*" +e752 test_unused.cpp
-e"*" will remove all the warnings and +e752 will turn on this specific one
If you index to code with Doxygen you can see from where is each function referenced. However, you would have to browse through each class (1 HTML page per class) and scan for those that don't have anything pointing to them.
Alternatively, you could use ctags to generate list of all functions in the code, and then use objdump or some similar tool to get list of all function in .o files - and then compare those lists. However, this can be problematic due to name mangling.
I don't think there is such thing because some functions not having a body in the actual source tree might be defined in some external library. This can only be done by creating a script which makes a list of declared functions in a header and verifies if they are sometimes called.
I have a C++ ftplugin for vim that is able is check and report unmatched functions -- vimmers, the ftplugin suite is not yet straightforward to install. The ftplugin is based on ctags results (hence its heuristic could be easily adapted to other environments), sometimes there are false positives in the case of inline functions.
HTH,
In addition Doxygen (#Milan Babuskov), you can see if there are warnings for this in your compiler. E.g. gcc has -Wunused-function for static functions; -fdump-ipa-cgraph.
I've heard good things about PC-Lint, but I imagine it's probably overkill for your needs.