|
It's hard to understand your question. I think there are many better ways of solving the problem which might include restructuring the program, especially to make that section into smaller modules or to create your own debugging interface and pass parameters through it so you have a functional means of tracking program states. If you could tighten up input validation and narrow the scope of acceptable input it may help detect bugs.
The way you want to do it printing code is not even remotely a standard functionality or common practice so it is a very oversized foot you are trying to shoehorn into a small shoe and the result will likely be as comfortable.
If you want to pursue it anyway it's hard to imagine without knowing your code. You could set up a custom table of watch variables and or expressions and use the stringizing operator in a macro, similar to an assert() style.
#define record_str (a) (fprintf(debug, "%s : %s", #a, a))
#define record_int(a) (fprintf(debug, "%s : %s", #a, itoa(a)))
Combine it with __LINE__ and or FILE or TIME
C/C++ line number - Stack Overflow[^]
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can try using "run to cursor" to see if that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I known how to "using run to cursor",but the problem is I need to pressed F10 button hundreds, for execution whole program.
I need to view "execution whole program line by line" exacts
|
|
|
|
|
Well good luck, but I don't think you are going to find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither 'Run to cursor' nor 'step over' (F10) are suitable functions for your problems. Either set a breakpoint within the code of the right if/else branch, or set a data breakpoint that stops execution the moment iVal changes its value: How to: Set a Data Breakpoint (Native Only) | Microsoft Docs[^]
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
A line by line code execution logger doesn't make any sense. The sheer amount of data that would produce for any kind of meaningful program will swiftly exceed any storage capacity that you can throw at it. Not to mention that it would increase computation time by a factor of 100-1000 due to the required IO operations.
Much better you learn to use the debugger: simply place a break point at the branch(es) you're interested in and let the debugger run until it hits one of your break points.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,but I sure "
A line by line code execution logger does make sense for me
I have very large storage capacity, and I can wait for long time to output.
|
|
|
|
|
No it doesn't. You don't understand what you're asking for. Even if it would kind of work out for the very simple program you are looking at right now, it won't help you beyond that: the next time you're trying to understand some code, it won't be good enough, and you will eventually realize that you wasted a lot of time with a tool that, in the end, doesn't really help.
Please take the advice from people who have spent decades on programming and using tools. The debugger is the second tool I learned to use after the editor, and it is still the most helpful tool I use today. Without it, large scale applications wouldn't be possible, and smaller ones would cost orders of magnitude more money and time to develop.
With a debugger you can do the inspection you're asking for at runtime, and a lot more. You won't need to write one yourself, nyou won't have to wait for it's output to be written, and you won't waste ludicrous amouunts of storage space. It's better in any way you can think of.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13081369 wrote: I don't want to press F10 1000 times to watch all the 1000 line in the order of execution.
Have you considered setting a breakpoint (that only breaks when a condition is met)?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Or a watchpoint that only triggers when a variable changes value? Otherwise, go through and add printf() or cout at "interesting" points. You should be able to wrap those in #ifdef _DEBUG macros so you don't have to pull them out in Release version. A really smart cookie might figure out how to use variadic marcros, #ifdefs, etc so you could do something like
int main()
{
DEBUG_LOG("starting main\n");
int i = 0, j = 0;
DEBUG_LOG("i = %d, j = %d\n");
int n = foo(i,j);
DEBUG_LOG("foo(%d,%d) returned %d\n", i, j, n);
DEBUG_LOG("main exits\n");
}
If you're using straight C, then vprintf() might help. C++ might need the use of variadic templaytes (C++11 and later - see c++ - How to make a variadic macro for std::cout? - Stack Overflow
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you meant this reply for the OP?
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, but I want to find a way that don't add any code like DEBUG_LOG(), to print source code.
because the source code too many. I wouldn't be do this otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
This response shows that you have really no understanding of what a debugger does, and how to use it. A debugger does not require you to add anything to your code at all. There's no need for a debugger to print code, nor to add any code to your program.
You really should read this up before continuing to refuse the only sensible advice any experienced programmer can offer you on this problem: Debugger - Wikipedia[^]
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is I don't know where are the "condition is met".
Whether input's iVal is 1 or 2, first hundreds line code execution are equals. I want to find first diffence between 1 and 2 (iVal), and I sured the diffence appeared after "execution long line codes ago".
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
You could use the Debug Interface Access SDK to get the exact line of 'source code' associated with any instruction offset in the executable. This is how WinDbg and Visual Studio knows where the line of source code is located.
Using your sample:
main()
{
int iTemp = 0; __asm int 3
fun()
iTemp = 1
}
Then add an exception hander for STATUS_BREAKPOINT (0x80000003) and call into DIA and pass the exception offset to get the source line.
It's actually quite simple.
However if you are looking to perform instrumentation at the instruction level then have a look at DynamoRIO and specifically the instrace_x86 sample.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Using your method, I need add “__asm int 3;” for every line of code?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13081369 wrote: Using your method, I need add “__asm int 3;” for every line of code?
No,
You could set the hardware breakpoints at DR0-DR7 and automate every single-step through your entire program printing out each line of source code as it is executed by querying the PDB file associated with the executable via DIA.
What you are asking is absolutely possible but it's a lot of work. Are you sure that you need to do this?
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
First, I sure.
I run DIA SDK\Samples\DIA2Dump\Dia2Dump.exe myProgram.pdb
I can view values and functions list when Dia2Dump.exe is run.
But， How to "set the hardware breakpoints at DR0-DR7 and automate every single-step through your entire program"?
Is modify dia2dump.cpp -> main(), start my program by dia2dump.exe?
and WaitForDebugEvent(&dbgEvent, INFINITE); in dia2dump.exe?
Can you give me a sample?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13081369 wrote: But， How to "set the hardware breakpoints at DR0-DR7 and automate every single-step through your entire program"?
With the SetThreadContext function. It would be a great learning exercise for understanding both debugging and exception handling.
Member 13081369 wrote: Can you give me a sample?
No,
But I thought of another way to do this automated that would not require modifying your source code. Dan Thompson has authored DbgShell which can be used from Powershell. With a simple powershell script you should be able to attach to your executable and single-step automated and then instantiate an IDiaDataSource object.
Again, like the other members responding to you... I can't imagine why you would want to print each line of source code.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why use the Visual Studio Debugger SDK, when you can just use the much more intuitive visual debugger that comes with the VS IDE? 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Stefan,
The poster is asking "How do I print each source line into a text file as my program is being executed?"
Rather than belittle him I simply answered the question.
In fact I just thought of a much easier way to do this using Powershell with the Windbg COM interfaces and IDiaDataSource that doesn't require writing any code. He could just write a powershell script to automate it.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. I shouldn't have been so harsh.
That said, my experience tells me that people rarely want, literally, what they're asking for. If they're asking for something that requires even a modest amount of expertise, they likely have no good understanding of what is possible, or sensible, in the context of their problem. Therefore the first thing I usually do is question their real needs, or make an educated guess about it. Often I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. But either way, I typically get a better understanding of what is really required after a response or two.
In this case, the OP is more adamant about what he needs than usual, but at the same time I'm convinced that answering his request, literally, won't really help him: His statement about not wanting to 'press F10 10000 times' implies two things:
1. that he does use a debugger
2. that he doesn't know how to use it for his particular problem
3. that he doesn't even expect that it can help him
(Ok, that's three, but the third is implied other than the quoted statements)
Unless I'm for some reason totally wrong with my interpretation, I feel that learning to use the debugger more efficiently is going to help a lot more than actually printing an exection log.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you have a block in your code like:
static int someNumber = 100000;
...
for(int i = 0; i < someNumber; ++i)
{
int a = 0;
...
double b = (double )a++;
...
}
Now tell us how are you going to analyze those 20 * 100000 = 2 million lines of the executed code? 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
