Using Microsoft Visual Studio 98, Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 SP6
When running under the debugger, there's only one problem. If I pause the program and resume, everything's fine.
The problem? When I hit a breakpoint, my program stops. But not in a good way; execution halts, I'm thrown out of debug mode into edit mode. All's fine until a breakpoint is hit. And I know it's hitting the breakpoint - I see a flash of the little yellow arrow pointing at the right line of code, local variables in the inspect window and the call stack in that window. And then I'm staring at the editor.
This happens in all projects.
I've uninstalled and re-installed MSVC6. It didn't help.
I'm about to start over on a new PC; before I go that far, anyone know what I've done to this one?
Note: MSVC6 is not my choice, but there are reasons. It's the tool I work with. And, we get to target NT4, so given 2008 can't target NT4 and 2005 has issues with MFC and NT4, MSVC6 it is.
Stop beating on VC6. It's old. The STL was updated in 1996 from HP code written in 1994. C++ was ratified in 1998.
What is the code doing when you are breaking? Can you reduce the situation into a simple test. When I try that I usually find the cause. If you can do that so it still happens then I'll take a look at it for you. I too am unfortunate enough to use VC6 for my day to day work.
Visual C++ Express 2008 can't be used in certain situations.
The first thing I would check is if this project does the same thing on other machines. If not, it could be your box is heading south. If not it's the VC6 project itself.
Typically I get goofiness with the debugger when my program is doing something with the hardware, especially the video.
I would recommend turning off parts of your program until you figure out what part is causing this. If your program is small and not doing much it might be that the project is corrupted and needs to get rebuilt. Make a new project from scratch and put your files and settings back in by hand.
Is it specific to the app you're working on or do all breakpoints in any app break the debugger?
Is anything different if you attach the debugger manually after launching the app normally?
Is the device running out of memory and therefore gives up the ghost when it requires the additional memory to stop at the breakpoint?
Is the device running out of memory and therefore gives up the ghost when it requires the additional memory to stop at the breakpoint?
No, there's over a gig of RAM to go, and even more of virtual memory.
I haven't used MSVC6 in years, but I remember the debugger basically being a flaky piece of crap. Things like this would regularly happen for no apparent reason because it just didn't like your code that day.
In addition to the debugger being a flaky piece of crap, the rest of it was too.
It's STL implementation isn't threadsafe, it doesn't support very much of the C++ standard, and the IDE is sorely lacking in niceties.
I'm pretty sure you also just simply can't use any versions of the Platform SDK from the last 5 years because it's too old to grok them. Not a good thing.
You'd be mad to keep using it when there is Visual C++ Express 2008 which you can download for free.
Related
I have an old application written with VC++ 6.0, that I have to maintain. The application is quite large, and it would require a lot of time to convert it to a newer VC++ (like VS2005).
The problem is, that every time I make the smallest changes in the code, the solution (.dsw-file) is destroyed.
I use a VMware Virtual Machine running Windows XP 32bit as Development Environment.
Has anyone else experienced the same problem with Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0?
Hard to give advice, VS6 is not well known to spontaneously destruct project files. You could arbitrarily set the read-only attribute on the .dsw file, you ought to get some kind of message when whatever code is doing this finds out it can no longer delete the file.
I have to add some unwelcome advice. Using a grossly outdated version of Visual Studio is okayish, but as time ticks on the inconveniences and quirks build up. It never gets better. Until you get to a point where investing the time to update the project (don't pick the grossly outdated VS2005) gets to be competitive with the amount of time you waste keeping the old one going. Sounds like D-day has arrived. Time to ditch it.
I am looking for a C++ IDE in which I can actively play the game and test the updates live instead of testing it, redoing th code, compiling it and running it again. I'm running Windows 7 x86 professional.
This isn't really an answer, and so probably shouldn't get upvotes, but has information.
I don't know of any C++ IDE that can do runtime updates of code, but it's definitely not impossible. There's lots of C++ assemblers which already JIT code, live updates is merely the next step that no IDE has taken quite yet that I know of.
asmjit can JIT C++
Visual Studio can JIT C++/CLI (which isn't quite C++) (RMartinho corrects that VIsual Studio compiles C++/CLI to IL, and then JITs the IL. Tehcnically different.)
cling uses the clang fruntend and LLVM backend, which has a JIT code generation system.
R.Martinho has also reminded me that Microsoft Visual Studio already has this feature. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/esaeyddf(v=vs.100).aspx If you "stop" the code, you can make changes, and it will apply those changes and resume execution.
There's an interesting project at http://runtimecompiledcplusplus.blogspot.co.uk/ that is working on this problem and looks like it might work for you; I haven't used it myself but it looks active if still a little raw. It uses the Visual Studio 2010 compiler.
You can't run C++ code without compiling. Minor syntactic differences between languages shouldn't be an issue so you shouldn't limit yourself to just one language.
I suggest you give Unity a chance; there's a fairly robust free version available. You can write scripts in C# (a language similar to C++), or UnityScript (somehting similar to JavaScript) or Boo (similar to Python) and you can test the results right away, without having to compile.
What about Edit and Continue in Visual Studio? In order to use it, you have to pause execution (either by breakpoint or Pause button), recompile and resume. Note, that you can edit the code while the program is running. I know you can't test the game live, but you don't have to reload resources etc. It's IDE integration makes it really easy and straightforward to use.
If you want changes to be visible live, though, consider using script language such as Lua. One of their purposes is what you want to achieve.
I've listed the options for runtime compilation of C++ code on the alternatives wiki page of Runtime Compiled C++.
From the sounds you may interested in either Recode or Alcanterea.
Organize your C++ game to use plugins, and add a feature to load a new (binary version of) plugin during the game.
Then, you could play your game, recompile a plugin, reload it (so invoke your dynamic linker at runtime), and continue playing.
It is not failproof, but it might usually work.
Of course you cannot unload a plugin which has some active call frame on the (or some thread's) call stack. I would suggest to avoid unloading old plugins...
I know that E&C is a controversial subject and some say that it encourages a wrong approach to debugging, but still - I think we can agree that there are numerous cases when it is clearly useful - experimenting with different values of some constants, redesigning GUI parameters on-the-fly to find a good look... You name it.
My question is: Are we ever going to have E&C on GDB? I understand that it is a platform-specific feature and needs some serious cooperation with the compiler, the debugger and the OS (MSVC has this one easy as the compiler and debugger always come in one package), but... It still should be doable. I've even heard something about Apple having it implemented in their version of GCC [citation needed]. And I'd say it is indeed feasible.
Knowing all the hype about MSVC's E&C (my experience says it's the first thing MSVC users mention when asked "why not switch to Eclipse and gcc/gdb"), I'm seriously surprised that after quite some years GCC/GDB still doesn't have such feature. Are there any good reasons for that? Is someone working on it as we speak?
It is a surprisingly non-trivial amount of work, encompassing many design decisions and feature tradeoffs. Consider: you are debugging. The debugee is suspended. Its image in memory contains the object code of the source, and the binary layout of objects, the heap, the stacks. The debugger is inspecting its memory image. It has loaded debug information about the symbols, types, address mappings, pc (ip) to source correspondences. It displays the call stack, data values.
Now you want to allow a particular set of possible edits to the code and/or data, without stopping the debuggee and restarting. The simplest might be to change one line of code to another. Perhaps you recompile that file or just that function or just that line. Now you have to patch the debuggee image to execute that new line of code the next time you step over it or otherwise run through it. How does that work under the hood? What happens if the code is larger than the line of code it replaced? How does it interact with compiler optimizations? Perhaps you can only do this on a specially compiled for EnC debugging target. Perhaps you will constrain possible sites it is legal to EnC. Consider: what happens if you edit a line of code in a function suspended down in the call stack. When the code returns there does it run the original version of the function or the version with your line changed? If the original version, where does that source come from?
Can you add or remove locals? What does that do to the call stack of suspended frames? Of the current function?
Can you change function signatures? Add fields to / remove fields from objects? What about existing instances? What about pending destructors or finalizers? Etc.
There are many, many functionality details to attend to to make any kind of usuable EnC work. Then there are many cross-tools integration issues necessary to provide the infrastructure to power EnC. In particular, it helps to have some kind of repository of debug information that can make available the before- and after-edit debug information and object code to the debugger. For C++, the incrementally updatable debug information in PDBs helps. Incremental linking may help too.
Looking from the MS ecosystem over into the GCC ecosystem, it is easy to imagine the complexity and integration issues across GDB/GCC/binutils, the myriad of targets, some needed EnC specific target abstractions, and the "nice to have but inessential" nature of EnC, are why it has not appeared yet in GDB/GCC.
Happy hacking!
(p.s. It is instructive and inspiring to look at what the Smalltalk-80 interactive programming environment could do. In St80 there was no concept of "restart" -- the image and its object memory were always live, if you edited any aspect of a class you still had to keep running. In such environments object versioning was not a hypothetical.)
I'm not familiar with MSVC's E&C, but GDB has some of the things you've mentioned:
http://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb/Altering.html#Altering
17. Altering Execution
Once you think you have found an error in your program, you might want to find out for certain whether correcting the apparent error would lead to correct results in the rest of the run. You can find the answer by experiment, using the gdb features for altering execution of the program.
For example, you can store new values into variables or memory locations, give your program a signal, restart it at a different address, or even return prematurely from a function.
Assignment: Assignment to variables
Jumping: Continuing at a different address
Signaling: Giving your program a signal
Returning: Returning from a function
Calling: Calling your program's functions
Patching: Patching your program
Compiling and Injecting Code: Compiling and injecting code in GDB
This is a pretty good reference to the old Apple implementation of "fix and continue". It also references other working implementations.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2003-06/msg00500.html
Here is a snippet:
Fix and continue is a feature implemented by many other debuggers,
which we added to our gdb for this release. Sun Workshop, SGI ProDev
WorkShop, Microsoft's Visual Studio, HP's wdb, and Sun's Hotspot Java
VM all provide this feature in one way or another. I based our
implementation on the HP wdb Fix and Continue feature, which they
added a few years back. Although my final implementation follows the
general outlines of the approach they took, there is almost no shared
code between them. Some of this is because of the architectual
differences (both the processor and the ABI), but even more of it is
due to implementation design differences.
Note that this capability may have been removed in a later version of their toolchain.
UPDATE: Dec-21-2012
There is a GDB Roadmap PDF presentation that includes a slide describing "Fix and Continue" among other bullet points. The presentation is dated July-9-2012 so maybe there is hope to have this added at some point. The presentation was part of the GNU Tools Cauldron 2012.
Also, I get it that adding E&C to GDB or anywhere in Linux land is a tough chore with all the different components.
But I don't see E&C as controversial. I remember using it in VB5 and VB6 and it was probably there before that. Also it's been in Office VBA since way back. And it's been in Visual Studio since VS2005. VS2003 was the only one that didn't have it and I remember devs howling about it. They intended to add it back anyway and they did with VS2005 and it's been there since. It works with C#, VB, and also C and C++. It's been in MS core tools for 20+ years, almost continuous (counting VB when it was standalone), and subtracting VS2003. But you could still say they had it in Office VBA during the VS2003 period ;)
And Jetbrains recently added it too their C# tool Rider. They bragged about it (rightly so imo) in their Rider blog.
I have a fairly complex (approx 200,000 lines of C++ code) application that has decided to crash, although it crashes a little differently on a couple of different systems. The trick is that it doesn't crash or trap out in debugger. It only crashes when the application .EXE is run independently (either the debug EXE or the release EXE - both behave the same way). When it crashes in the debug EXE, and I get it to start debugging, the call stack is buried down into the windows/MFC part of things, and isn't reflecting any of my code. Perhaps I'm seeing a stack corruption of some sort, but I'm just not sure at the moment. My question is more general - it's about tools and techniques.
I'm an old programmer (C and assembly language days), and a relative newcomer (couple/few years) to C++ and Visual Studio (2003 for this projecT).
Are there tricks or techniques anyone's had success with in tracking down crashing issues when you cannot make the software crash in a debugger session? Stuff like permission issues, for example?
The only thing I've thought of is to start plugging in debug/status messages to a logfile, but that's a long, hard way to go. Been there, done that. Any better suggestions? Am I missing some tools that would help? Is VS 2008 better for this kind of thing?
Thanks for any guidance. Some very smart people here (you know who you are!).
cheers.
lint.
C/C++ Free alternative to Lint?
I've not done C++ professionally for over 10 years, but back in the day I used Rational PurifyPlus, which will be a good start, as is BoundsChecker (if it still exists!) These products find out of bounds accesses, corrupted memory, corrupted stack and other problems that can go undetected until "boom" and then you have no idea where you are.
I would try these first. If that fails, then you can start typing in logging statements.
If the debugger mitigates the crash, this can be for these reasons:
memory corruption: under a debug build memory is allocated with space before an after, so rogue writes may not corrupt under a debug session
timing and multi-threading: the debugger alters timing of threads and can make tricky multi-threaded problems hard to nail down.
If it's memory corruption, a memory tracking/diagnostic tool (I used to use BoundsChecker to great effect in the good old days of C++) may help you to locate and fix the cause in minutes, where any other technique coud take days or even months.
For other cases, you've suggested another approach yourself: a sometimes labour-intensive but very effective approach to getting a "real" stack trace is to simply use printf - a vastly underrated debugging tool available in every environment. If you have a rough idea you can straddle the crash area with only a few log messages to narrow down the location, and then add more as you home in on the problem area. This can often unearth enough clues that you can isolate the cause of the crash in a few minutes, even though it can seem like a lot of work and perhaps a hopeless cause before you start.
edit:
Also, if you have the application under source control, then get a historical version from when you think it was working, and then do a binary chop between that date and "now" to isolate when the issue began to occur. This can often narrow down a bug to the precise checkin that introduced the bug, and if you're lucky it will point you at a few lines of code. (If you're unlucky the bug won't be so easily repeatable, or you'll narrow it down to a 500-file checkin where a major refactoring or similar took place)
Get the debugging tool kit from MS ( http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/default.mspx ).
Set adplus up for crash mode monitoring ( http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/devtools/debugging/default.mspx ).
This should get you a crash dump when the app crashes. Load the dump up in WindDbg from the debugging toolkit and analyze using that. It is a painful, but very powerful, process to anaylyze out-of-debugger crashes.
There are quite a few resources around for using WinDbg - a good book on general Windows unmanaged debugging and the tools in the debugging kits is: http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Windows-Debugging-ebook/dp/B000XPNUMW
I couldn't recommend more the blog of Mark Rusinovich. Absolutely brilliant guy from whom you can learn a whole bunch of debugging techniques for windows and many more. Especially try read some of the "The Case of" series! Amazing stuff!
For example take a look at this case he had investigated - a crash of IE. He shows how to capture the stack of the failing thread and many more interesting stuff. His main tools are windows debugging tools and also his sysinternals tools!
Enough said. Go read it!
Also I would recommend the book: Windows Internals 5. Again by Mark and company.
Might be that you have a too big object on the stack...
Explainations (from comments):
I gives this answer because that's the only case I've seen that a debuger (VS or CodeWarrior) couldn't catch and seeemed mysterious. Most of the time, that was the big application object that was defined on the stack in the main() function, and having members not allocated on the heap. Just calling new to instantiate the object fixed the obscure problem. Didn't need to get a specific tool for that in the end.
My experience is that sometime indeed program launched by the debugger (release or debug mode) don't crash as they do when launch on their own.
But I don't recall a case when the very same program launch on it's own, and then attached and continued through a debugger don't reproduce the crash.
An other and better approach if the crash doesn't always happens, would be to be able to produce a minidump (equivalent of unix coredump) and do a postmortem analysis,
there are plenty of tools on windows to do that, for example look at:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/debug/postmortemdebug_standalone1.aspx?df=100&forumid=3419&exp=0&select=1114393
(perhaps someone may have a better link that this one).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We are producing a portable code (win+macOs) and we are looking at how to make the code more rubust as it crashes every so often... (overflows or bad initializations usually) :-(
I was reading that Google Chrome uses a process for every tab so if something goes wrong then the program does not crash compleatelly, only that tab. I think that is quite neat, so i might give it a go!
So i was wondering if someone has some tips, help, reading list, comment, or something that can help me build more rubust c++ code (portable is always better).
In the same topic i was also wondering if there is a portable library for processes (like boost)?
Well many Thanks.
I've developed on numerous multi-platform C++ apps (the largest being 1.5M lines of code and running on 7 platforms -- AIX, HP-UX PA-RISC, HP-UX Itanium, Solaris, Linux, Windows, OS X). You actually have two entirely different issues in your post.
Instability. Your code is not stable. Fix it.
Use unit tests to find logic problems before they kill you.
Use debuggers to find out what's causing the crashes if it's not obvious.
Use boost and similar libraries. In particular, the pointer types will help you avoid memory leaks.
Cross-platform coding.
Again, use libraries that are designed for this when possible. Particularly for any GUI bits.
Use standards (e.g. ANSI vs gcc/MSVC, POSIX threads vs Unix-specific thread models, etc) as much as possible, even if it requires a bit more work. Minimizing your platform specific code means less overall work, and fewer APIs to learn.
Isolate, isolate, isolate. Avoid in-line #ifdefs for different platforms as much as possible. Instead, stick platform specific code into its own header/source/class and use your build system and #includes to get the right code. This helps keep the code clean and readable.
Use the C99 integer types if at all possible instead of "long", "int", "short", etc -- otherwise it will bite you when you move from a 32-bit platform to a 64-bit one and longs suddenly change from 4 bytes to 8 bytes. And if that's ever written to the network/disk/etc then you'll run into incompatibility between platforms.
Personally, I'd stabilize the code first (without adding any more features) and then deal with the cross-platform issues, but that's up to you. Note that Visual Studio has an excellent debugger (the code base mentioned above was ported to Windows just for that reason).
The Chrome answer is more about failure mitigation and not about code quality. Doing what Chrome is doing is admitting defeat.
Better QA that is more than just programmer testing their own work.
Unit testing
Regression testing
Read up on best practices that other
companies use.
To be blunt, if your software is crashing often due to overflows and bad initializations, then you have a very basic programming quality problem that isn't going to be easily fixed. That sounds a hash and mean, that isn't my intent. My point is that the problem with the bad code has to be your primary concern (which I'm sure it is). Things like Chrome or liberal use to exception handling to catch program flaw are only distracting you from the real problem.
You don't mention what the target project is; having a process per-tab does not necessarily mean more "robust" code at all. You should aim to write solid code with tests regardless of portability - just read about writing good C++ code :)
As for the portability section, make sure you are testing on both platforms from day one and ensure that no new code is written until platform-specific problems are solved.
You really, really don't want to do what Chrome is doing, it requires a process manager which is probably WAY overkill for what you want.
You should investigate using smart pointers from Boost or another tool that will provide reference counting or garbage collection for C++.
Alternatively, if you are frequently crashing you might want to perhaps consider writing non-performance critical parts of your application in a scripting language that has C++ bindings.
Scott Meyers' Effective C++ and More Effective C++ are very good, and fun to read.
Steve McConnell's Code Complete is a favorite of many, including Jeff Atwood.
The Boost libraries are probably an excellent choice. One project where I work uses them. I've only used WIN32 threading myself.
I agree with Torlack.
Bad initialization or overflows are signs of poor quality code.
Google did it that way because sometimes, there was no way to control the code that was executed in a page (because of faulty plugins, etc.). So if you're using low quality plug ins (it happens), perhaps the Google solution will be good for you.
But a program without plugins that crashes often is just badly written, or very very complex, or very old (and missing a lot of maintenance time). You must stop the development, and investigate each and every crash. On Windows, compile the modules with PDBs (program databases), and each time it crashes, attach a debugger to it.
You must add internal tests, too. Avoid the pattern:
doSomethingBad(T * t)
{
if(t == NULL) return ;
// do the processing.
}
This is very bad design because the error is there, and you just avoid it, this time. But the next function without this guard will crash. Better to crash sooner to be nearer from the error.
Instead, on Windows (there must be a similar API on MacOS)
doSomethingBad(T * t)
{
if(t == NULL) ::DebugBreak() ; // it will call the debugger
// do the processing.
}
(don't use this code directly... Put it in a define to avoid delivering it to a client...)
You can choose the error API that suits you (exceptions, DebugBreak, assert, etc.), but use it to stop the moment the code knows something's wrong.
Avoid the C API whenever possible. Use C++ idioms (RAII, etc.) and libraries.
Etc..
P.S.: If you use exceptions (which is a good choice), don't hide them inside a catch. You'll only make your problem worse because the error is there, but the program will try to continue and will probably crash sometimes after, and corrupt anything it touches in the mean time.
You can always add exception handling to your program to catch these kinds of faults and ignore them (though the details are platform specific) ... but that is very much a two edged sword. Instead consider having the program catch the exceptions and create dump files for analysis.
If your program has behaved in an unexpected way, what do you know about your internal state? Maybe the routine/thread that crashed has corrupted some key data structure? Maybe if you catch the error and try to continue the user will save whatever they are working on and commit the corruption to disk?
Beside writing more stable code, here's one idea that answers your question.
Whether you are using processes or threads. You can write a small / simple watchdog program. Then your other programs register with that watchdog. If any process dies, or a thread dies, it can be restarted by the watchdog. Of course you'll want to put in some test to make sure you don't keep restarting the same buggy thread. ie: restart it 5 times, then after the 5th, shutdown the whole program and log to file / syslog.
Build your app with debug symbols, then either add an exception handler or configure Dr Watson to generate crash dumps (run drwtsn32.exe /i to install it as the debugger, without the /i to pop the config dialog). When your app crashes, you can inspect where it went wrong in windbg or visual studio by seeing a callstack and variables.
google for symbol server for more info.
Obviously you can use exception handling to make it more robust and use smart pointers, but fixing the bugs is best.
I would recommend that you compile up a linux version and run it under Valgrind.
Valgrind will track memory leaks, uninitialized memory reads and many other code problems. I highly recommend it.
After over 15 years of Windows development I recently wrote my first cross-platform C++ app (Windows/Linux). Here's how:
STL
Boost. In particular the filesystem and thread libraries.
A browser based UI. The app 'does' HTTP, with the UI consisting of XHTML/CSS/JavaScript (Ajax style). These resources are embedded in the server code and served to the browser when required.
Copious unit testing. Not quite TDD, but close. This actually changed the way I develop.
I used NetBeans C++ for the Linux build and had a full Linux port in no time at all.
Build it with the idea that the only way to quit is for the program to crash and that it can crash at any time. When you build it that way, crashing will never/almost never lose any data. I read an article about it a year or two ago. Sadly, I don't have a link to it.
Combine that with some sort of crash dump and have it email you it so you can fix the problem.