I was getting bad data from an application I was writting using C++ in Visual Studio 2k3 so I decided to debug it. Then I found it was throwing an exception but one I can't track down.
Then I placed some try/catch blocks and low and behold, when I don't debug there is no exception. That is, I have code that looks like this:
std::vector<MyClass*> ListOfStuff;
.
.
.
try
{
.
.
.
const MyClass * localPointer = ListOfStuff[i]; //This is where the exception occurs
.
.
}
catch (...)
{
int x = 0; //place break here
}
So if I step through the code line by line I'll get an exception and shot to the catch. But if I just let it run with a breakpoint inside the catch nothing happens. Using an iterator has the same behavior. And I can successfully check the size of the vector so I know I'm within the bounds.
Can anyone tell me what's going on? If it matters I'm using some standard windows libraries and openGL.
You can try placing a
DebugBreak();
call in the catch clause. If the app is running in the debugger, it should get control. If it's not running in the debugger you should get an opportunity to attach the "Just in Time" debugger (which is usually Visual Studio if you have that installed).
I'm referring to VS2005 but it should be applicable in your case. If you access the IDE Debug > Exceptions.. menu item you can specify the exception types that the IDE debugger should break on when thrown which should cause you to see the line the exception was raised by when single stepping through the application.
You may need to play around with what types to catch (some 1st chance exceptions are not actually problems) but it will be helpful in identifying the point the exception is raised.
Is the exception an ASSERT? These may get compiled out at compile time or otherwise throw an assertion.
For example, you could have
#ifdef DEBUG
#define ASSERT(cond) if (cond) throw CDebugAssertionObj;
#else
#define ASSERT(cond)
#endif
If you're using a good IDE that allows conditional breakpoints (such as, "break here if i == 5"), then it's possible the condition itself is causing the exception.
Had that one for while... my head hurt when I found it.
Is that code part of a class method, and is ListOfStuff a member of the class? If so, check to make sure that your this pointer is valid.
Related
I am working with a C++ project (that I was not the author of) that has a lot of MFC string formatting functions. Unfortunately, stuff like %d and %s are very close together (including the location of letters d and s on the keyboard) that one can be transposed with another. So I may at times witness a code line as such:
CString s;
s.Format(L"Value v=%s", 100); //Should've been %d instead
This results in a hard crash of the process, that is very hard to locate & isolate in the final project. So I was thinking to wrap the Format function in my own override and catch the exception & log it before it is thrown as unhandled exception.
So I employed the following construct:
__try
{
//Do the Format function here
}
__except(1)
{
//Log the error, etc.
}
But unfortunately the construct above did not catch the exception from the first code chunk, so I got VS 2008 C++ debugger kick in and show this:
I then tried this:
try
{
//Do the Format function here
}
catch(int e)
{
//Do the logging
}
But that didn't catch it either.
So how can I catch that fault?
PS. And I have a second question. Is there an easy way to override an MFC function, like Format for instance?
MFC throws CException pointers, so you could try this:
try
{
// Do the Format function here
}
catch(CException* e)
{
// Do the logging then free the exception
if (m_bThrowExceptionAgain)
throw; // Do not delete e
else
e->Delete();
}
You have to delete the exception object once you have caught it as shown in the example. Also make sure you have C++ exceptions enabled in your compiler. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0e5twxsh.aspx for more information.
As others have already said low-level exceptions (like access violations) are not the same as C++ exceptions. They fall under the term Structured Exception Handling and would require other means to catch, at least by default.
It's possible to change compiler settings (at least in Visual Studio) to make it wrap those exceptions into something that C++ try/catch statements can handle, but as I recall that loses the details of what the SEH exception was and where it came from.
One way or another you could probably get exceptions to work well enough to help track down these issues, but there is also another way: Use static code analysis.
While standard C++ compilers don't normally verify format/printf-style calls, there are various tools that will. In fact some recent versions/editions of Visual Studio come with a code analysis tool, although it may not have been available in VS 2008 which you mentioned. So it might be worthwhile for you to do some research and see if you can get a hold of some kind of code analysis tool which could then catch all the CString::Format mistakes during analysis/compile-time rather than run-time.
You can use _set_se_translator() to convert SEH exceptions like access violation to C++ exceptions which you can then catch with except().
Some sample code: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/422/SEH-and-C-Exceptions-catch-all-in-one
I am writing a test using GoogleTest for the following class and I am getting the above error.
class Base
{
// Other Functions;
CSig objSig[50];
}
The Class CSig is as follows:
class CSig
{
//... constructor, destructor(empty) and some functions
CMod *objMod;
CDemod *objDemod;
}
CSig :: CSig
{
bIsInitialised = false;
for (int i=0; i<MAX_NUM; i++)
{
PStrokePrev[i] = 0.0;
}
}
However, when I discard CSig objSig[50], the tests run fine.
What can I do to solve this issue? Also, I need to have CSig objSig[50] in the Base class.
A SEH (Structured Exception Handling) exception is not a C++-exception that can be handled using c++-language constructs (try-catch) but it is raised from windows itself and points to some fundamental flaw. SEH-exceptions are very annoying because they do not cause normal stack unwinding which can lead to unclosed files or not-unlocked mutexes that should normally cleared by the destructors of the owning object.
I have encountered SEH-exceptions when accessing memory that does not belong to the current process so I recommend looking at memory-related instructions in the constructor and destructor of CSig.
You can read about SEH, for instance, here
The way I just found the problem was that in Visual Studio I went to Debug->Exceptions, and checked everything in the first column. Then run/debug your unit tests, and it will throw an exception on the line that the problem is at. That's where you need to debug/fix it.
I ran into this very problem using GoogleTest with Visual Studio 2010. Our setup involves creating a library for the GoogleTest Frameworks, which is then linked against our individual Unit Tests. I recently updated the Frameworks support and recompiled it from scratch. After doing this, I encountered the exception described above.
After a bit of digging, I discovered that the 'Struct Member Alignment' setting was the culprit:
Project properties > Configuration Properties > C/C++ > Code Generation > Struct Member Alignment
While the Frameworks project had the setting set to 'default', the corresponding Unit Test project had it configured to "1 Byte /Zp1". Once I changed them to have the same alignment, the problem went away.
For me it appeared to be a null reference error. Some method was called on a nullptr and for reasons unclear to me it didn’t fail immediately but just started executing. The SEH error presumably occurred as soon as unallocated memory was accessed. So check for null pointers!
I am having a similar issue and its pertaining to un-initialized variables and running the test in release build. I had a char * un-initialized after which initialized to NULL seems to have fixed the issue.
If you are using Visual Studio 2013, check the Thrown box for Win32 exceptions (specifically access violation) in Debug>Exceptions. This will let you debug which line has the issue. This might be useful since the debugger will not break if your program normally raises other exceptions.
destroying null pointer can be a reason. I found out through Visual Studio > Exception > Select All. Then run local windows debugger, it stopped at line where exception occurred.
Ran into this problem using msvc in qt. SEH was thrown almost randomly, for no apparent reasons. (read: didn't have any time left to look into it)
After NOT finding the right solution and the tests seemed to work for non-windows users, I switched to MinGW which ran the tests normally.
I was trying to delete a memory address which was already deleted. This was the problem in my case so i suggest to look for null pointers.
Is there a way of temporally disable first-chance exceptions in Visual C++?
Something like this:
void someFunc() {
disableFirstChanceExceptions();
try {
// some code
}
catch (std::exception& e) {
// some code
}
catch (...) {
// some code
}
enableFirstChanceExceptions();
}
I know what first-chance-exceptions are and how to use them.
The problem is, that I am distributing a DLL, in which exceptions are used.
Unfortunately if a customer is using a debugger with his program, he will notice my intern exceptions.
It is not that I want to hide them, it is more that I want to get rid of these support questions.
Your code throws exceptions.
Your customers insist on running debuggers against your code, and explicitly configure it to break on first-chance exceptions.
You have basically two options:
don't throw exceptions, or
ignore when your customer is being stupid. What your code does internally is none of their business as long as it works as intended.
I'd suggest the latter. If they have a problem with exceptions being thrown and caught inside third-party code, they'll find themselves unable to use a lot of libraries. They'll need to grow up and start acting like they know what they're doing.
First chance exceptions are not something that can be turned on and off in your code (speaking only about windows, vs, c++ chain, not familiar with other platforms). This is construct is built into the run time system to make debugging possible. The debugger can be configured to ignore some or all first chance exceptions. You can use ctrl + alt + e to bring up the VS debugger's exception handling behavior menu. This will allow clients debugging to filter what the want caught by the debugger.
I have this program written in C++ Builder 6. I didn't write all the code, just some of it. The language, however, is not C++ (as far as I'm aware) - it looks more like Delphi or Pascal. So that's why I included them all in the tags.
I have an int called Oversteering.
try
{
Oversteering=HoursCounter.ToInt();
}
catch(EConvertError &convertError)
{
Oversteering=0;
}
HoursCounter is an AnsiString, and it is in the form of an int.
Since this is the only try/catch statement in the whole code (that's not too good, I know), and I couldn't find any good example of such in Delphi/Pascal/???, I don't know if it's correctly written.
Well, I try to convert the string to an int. Sometimes I get this error:
That is, an exception called EConvertError has occurred.
So my question is: why is this exception NOT caught by the catch statement?
This error is shown by the debugger when running through the code,
if you run the exe and have the same situation the error message will not be shown to you
The exception is caught but the debugger is notifiying you regarding the error in the code
that is here
try
{
Oversteering=HoursCounter.ToInt();
}
since running in the debugger the ,your trying to convert (blankspace) '' to integer, the debugger will show the exception...but when running the exe, the debugger will set
Oversteering=0
check this from about.com
Break On Exceptions
When building a program with exception handling, you may not want Delphi to break on Exceptions. This is a great feature if you want Delphi to show where an exception has occurred; however, it can be annoying when you test your own exception handling.
As #PresleyDias explained, it is the debugger that is displaying the exception, not your app. The exception is being caught (you should be catching it by a const reference, though), but the debugger sees it before your app does, that's all. You can configure the debugger to ignore EConvertError, if you like.
A better solution is to avoid the exception in the first place. If you use AnsiString::ToIntDef() instead, you can remove the try/catch block completely:
Oversteering = HoursCounter.ToIntDef(0);
Alternatively, you can use TryStrToInt() instead:
if (!TryStrToInt(HoursCounter, Oversteering))
{
...;
}
If 0 is a valid value for your counter, use TryStrToInt():
if (TryStrToInt(HoursCounter, Oversteering))
{
// use Oversteering as needed, even zeros...
}
else
ShowMessage("Cannot convert HoursCounter to a valid integer!");
If 0 always represents an error, then use ToIntDef():
Oversteering = HoursCounter.ToIntDef(0);
if (Oversteering != 0)
{
// use Oversteering as needed, except zeros...
}
else
ShowMessage("Cannot convert HoursCounter to an acceptable integer!");
I'm looking for an answer in MS VC++.
When debugging a large C++ application, which unfortunately has a very extensive usage of C++ exceptions. Sometimes I catch an exception a little later than I actually want.
Example in pseudo code:
FunctionB()
{
...
throw e;
...
}
FunctionA()
{
...
FunctionB()
...
}
try
{
Function A()
}
catch(e)
{
(<--- breakpoint)
...
}
I can catch the exception with a breakpoint when debugging. But I can't trace back if the exception occurred in FunctionA() or FunctionB(), or some other function. (Assuming extensive exception use and a huge version of the above example).
One solution to my problem is to determine and save the call stack in the exception constructor (i.e. before it is caught). But this would require me to derive all exceptions from this base exception class. It would also require a lot of code, and perhaps slow down my program.
Is there an easier way that requires less work? Without having to change my large code base?
Are there better solutions to this problem in other languages?
You pointed to a breakpoint in the code. Since you are in the debugger, you could set a breakpoint on the constructor of the exception class, or set Visual Studio debugger to break on all thrown exceptions (Debug->Exceptions Click on C++ exceptions, select thrown and uncaught options)
If you are just interested in where the exception came from, you could just write a simple macro like
#define throwException(message) \
{ \
std::ostringstream oss; \
oss << __FILE __ << " " << __LINE__ << " " \
<< __FUNC__ << " " << message; \
throw std::exception(oss.str().c_str()); \
}
which will add the file name, line number and function name to the exception text (if the compiler provides the respective macros).
Then throw exceptions using
throwException("An unknown enum value has been passed!");
There's an excellent book written by John Robbins which tackles many difficult debugging questions. The book is called Debugging Applications for Microsoft .NET and Microsoft Windows. Despite the title, the book contains a host of information about debugging native C++ applications.
In this book, there is a lengthy section all about how to get the call stack for exceptions that are thrown. If I remember correctly, some of his advice involves using structured exception handling (SEH) instead of (or in addition to) C++ exceptions. I really cannot recommend the book highly enough.
Put a breakpoint in the exception object constructor. You'll get your breakpoint before the exception is thrown.
There is no way to find out the source of an exception after it's caught, unless you include that information when it is thrown. By the time you catch the exception, the stack is already unwound, and there's no way to reconstruct the stack's previous state.
Your suggestion to include the stack trace in the constructor is your best bet. Yes, it costs time during construction, but you probably shouldn't be throwing exceptions often enough that this is a concern. Making all of your exceptions inherit from a new base may also be more than you need. You could simply have the relevant exceptions inherit (thank you, multiple inheritance), and have a separate catch for those.
You can use the StackTrace64 function to build the trace (I believe there are other ways as well). Check out this article for example code.
Here's how I do it in C++ using GCC libraries:
#include <execinfo.h> // Backtrace
#include <cxxabi.h> // Demangling
vector<Str> backtrace(size_t numskip) {
vector<Str> result;
std::vector<void*> bt(100);
bt.resize(backtrace(&(*bt.begin()), bt.size()));
char **btsyms = backtrace_symbols(&(*bt.begin()), bt.size());
if (btsyms) {
for (size_t i = numskip; i < bt.size(); i++) {
Aiss in(btsyms[i]);
int idx = 0; Astr nt, addr, mangled;
in >> idx >> nt >> addr >> mangled;
if (mangled == "start") break;
int status = 0;
char *demangled = abi::__cxa_demangle(mangled.c_str(), 0, 0, &status);
Str frame = (status==0) ? Str(demangled, demangled+strlen(demangled)) :
Str(mangled.begin(), mangled.end());
result.push_back(frame);
free(demangled);
}
free(btsyms);
}
return result;
}
Your exception's constructor can simply call this function and store away the stack trace. It takes the param numskip because I like to slice off the exception's constructor from my stack traces.
There's no standard way to do this.
Further, the call stack must typically be recorded at the time of the exception being thrown; once it has been caught the stack has unrolled, so you no longer know what was going on at the point of being thrown.
In VC++ on Win32/Win64, you might get usable-enough results by recording the value from the compiler intrinsic _ReturnAddress() and ensuring that your exception class constructor is __declspec(noinline). In conjunction with the debug symbol library, I think you could probably get the function name (and line number, if your .pdb contains it) that corresponds to the return address using SymGetLineFromAddr64.
In native code you can get a shot at walking the callstack by installing a Vectored Exception handler. VC++ implements C++ exceptions on top of SEH exceptions and a vectored exception handler is given first shot before any frame based handlers. However be really careful, problems introduced by vectored exception handling can be difficult to diagnose.
Also Mike Stall has some warnings about using it in an app that has managed code. Finally, read Matt Pietrek's article and make sure you understand SEH and vectored exception handling before you try this. (Nothing feels quite so bad as tracking down a critical problem to code you added help track down critical problems.)
I believe MSDev allows you to set break points when an exception is thrown.
Alternatively put the break point on the constructor of your exception object.
If you're debugging from the IDE, go to Debug->Exceptions, click Thrown for C++ exceptions.
Other languages? Well, in Java you call e.printStackTrace(); It doesn't get much simpler than that.
In case anyone is interested, a co-worker replied to this question to me via email:
Artem wrote:
There is a flag to MiniDumpWriteDump() that can do better crash dumps that will allow seeing full program state, with all global variables, etc. As for call stacks, I doubt they can be better because of optimizations... unless you turn (maybe some) optimizations off.
Also, I think disabling inline functions and whole program optimization will help quite a lot.
In fact, there are many dump types, maybe you could choose one small enough but still having more info
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms680519(VS.85).aspx
Those types won't help with call stack though, they only affect the amount of variables you'll be able to see.
I noticed some of those dump types aren't supported in dbghelp.dll version 5.1 that we use. We could update it to the newest, 6.9 version though, I've just checked the EULA for MS Debugging Tools -- the newest dbghelp.dll is still ok to redistribute.
I use my own exceptions. You can handle them quite simple - also they contain text. I use the format:
throw Exception( "comms::serial::serial( )", "Something failed!" );
Also I have a second exception format:
throw Exception( "comms::serial::serial( )", ::GetLastError( ) );
Which is then converted from a DWORD value to the actual message using FormatMessage. Using the where/what format will show you what happened and in what function.
By now, it has been 11 years since this question was asked and today, we can solve this problem using only standard C++11, i.e. cross-platform and without the need for a debugger or cumbersome logging.
You can trace the call stack that led to an exception
Use std::nested_exception and std::throw_with_nested
This won't give you a stack unwind, but in my opinion the next best thing.
It is described on StackOverflow here and here, how you can get a backtrace on your exceptions inside your code without need for a debugger or cumbersome logging, by simply writing a proper exception handler which will rethrow nested exceptions.
It will, however, require that you insert try/catch statements at the functions you wish to trace (i.e. functions without this will not appear in your trace).
You could automate this with macros, reducing the amount of code you have to write/change.
Since you can do this with any derived exception class, you can add a lot of information to such a backtrace!
You may also take a look at my MWE on GitHub, where a backtrace would look something like this:
Library API: Exception caught in function 'api_function'
Backtrace:
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:17 : library_function failed
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:13 : could not open file "nonexistent.txt"