back to the "good old days" of debugging *sigh*
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
feline_dracoform wrote:
still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this?
Definitely. :(( It's ironic, because even in the days of Commodore PET 6502 assembly language programming (25 years ago by now), I had a decent debugger, where I could at least single step through instructions, set breakpoints, and inspect registers and memory. Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
feline_dracoform wrote:
i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file.
This is often the case of embedded programming too, since your software is running on a machine other than the one compiled under. Also in 3D graphics programming the results are not always the same on debug vs. non-debug, so you are back to debug print statements. Setup a printf of your own that you can turn on and off with a compiler switch or configuration switch. Mine sends via UDP packet or named socket to another machine/window to do remote debugging of a kind. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
:-D I am working on a project where the server part is running on Linux, and it amuses me how nobody even tries to use gdb. They just log everything. Now, VS has probably spoiled me, but I am using kdbg, which is a decent front end to gdb for debugging. Of course, all coding is done from vim :)
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
I have to do this kind of stuff all the time. When we have a problem on a user's system, and we've tried everything we can think of, we have to resort to this sort of debugging. I'm occasionally sending users new EXE's and DLL's that have lots of MessageBox calls. Each call has a number that I can reference where it is in the code. I tell the user to tell me the last number that they saw on the screen. That way, I am able to pinpoint the exact error location easily...well, somewhat easier anyway. It makes me feel like I'm in a time before there were debuggers. :) Regards, Brigg Thorp Senior Software Engineer Timex Corporation
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
feline_dracoform wrote:
i have no debugger i can used
Not even adb? Though you are probably better off with printf :) Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
I have to do this kind of stuff all the time. When we have a problem on a user's system, and we've tried everything we can think of, we have to resort to this sort of debugging. I'm occasionally sending users new EXE's and DLL's that have lots of MessageBox calls. Each call has a number that I can reference where it is in the code. I tell the user to tell me the last number that they saw on the screen. That way, I am able to pinpoint the exact error location easily...well, somewhat easier anyway. It makes me feel like I'm in a time before there were debuggers. :) Regards, Brigg Thorp Senior Software Engineer Timex Corporation
Ever thought of depth configurable tracing? ie, the code dumps its progress to a file, the depth of data dumped being configurable. So if a user has a problem, turn up the tracing level and get them to run that code again. they mail you the dump file and you see what failed. I use it in drivers (they dump to a user mode program) alot, its very usefull. Nunc est bibendum
-
Ever thought of depth configurable tracing? ie, the code dumps its progress to a file, the depth of data dumped being configurable. So if a user has a problem, turn up the tracing level and get them to run that code again. they mail you the dump file and you see what failed. I use it in drivers (they dump to a user mode program) alot, its very usefull. Nunc est bibendum
Recently turned onto Log4Net which does all this, open source to boot.
-
feline_dracoform wrote:
still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this?
Definitely. :(( It's ironic, because even in the days of Commodore PET 6502 assembly language programming (25 years ago by now), I had a decent debugger, where I could at least single step through instructions, set breakpoints, and inspect registers and memory. Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
feline_dracoform wrote:
still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this?
Definitely. :(( It's ironic, because even in the days of Commodore PET 6502 assembly language programming (25 years ago by now), I had a decent debugger, where I could at least single step through instructions, set breakpoints, and inspect registers and memory. Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
A debugger? Good grief, what luxury! I started off on BBC's (also 6502 based), writing interrupt handlers and I/O handlers without even a printf ability. I used to poke bytes into a fixed memory location at various points in the code so I could figure out where it had got up to when it crashed (or more usually hung the system, but memory contents survived a soft reboot) :laugh:
The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison Awasu 2.2 [^]: A free RSS/Atom feed reader with support for Code Project.
-
Ever thought of depth configurable tracing? ie, the code dumps its progress to a file, the depth of data dumped being configurable. So if a user has a problem, turn up the tracing level and get them to run that code again. they mail you the dump file and you see what failed. I use it in drivers (they dump to a user mode program) alot, its very usefull. Nunc est bibendum
No...never tried that before. I'll have to look into that for the future. Brigg Thorp Senior Software Engineer Timex Corporation
-
it is probably good for the soul, or something like that, to have to do this. i have a program that crashes, but i have no idea why. i have no debugger i can used, no IDE, i have VIM for editing (working on a UNIX box) but i cannot even get VIM to catch compile errors due to the messed up make file. so i am having to work through the code, putting one line of debug (printf is your friend) for every single line of code in any function i find, and then compiling the code on the command line. of course, i have to pipe this through more, to watch for any errors, then i have to jump to the given line number manually. everyone should have to do this every few months (why should i be the only one suffering? *lopsided smile*) so that you properly appreciate having an IDE, any IDE, with a built in compiler and debugger. eventually i will discover who is corrupting memory, then i can fix it and return to a more modern programming environment. still, doesn't it make you go all misty eyed with fond memories to read this? and yes, this is effecting my mental stability :rolleyes: zen is the art of being at one with the two'ness
You modern programmers, you don't know what us old guys had to put up with. I remember the days when to do a compile, link and run took half a day, so you just had reams of fanfold paper on your desk, a print out of all the code and you went through it by hand. It taught you one thing, make sure your code is correct on paper first before you type it in. You know in a sadistic sort of way, I miss those days:sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
-
You modern programmers, you don't know what us old guys had to put up with. I remember the days when to do a compile, link and run took half a day, so you just had reams of fanfold paper on your desk, a print out of all the code and you went through it by hand. It taught you one thing, make sure your code is correct on paper first before you type it in. You know in a sadistic sort of way, I miss those days:sigh:
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
Ted Ferenc wrote:
compile, link and run took half a day, so you just had reams of fanfold paper on your desk
Sounds like when I started school. You'd feed your deck of cards (yes, punched cards) in the reader, and then wait for your run to finish. And wait. And wait. Smoke a cigarette and wait. Go to the john and wait. Wait some more. The operator at the reader window would then announce that the student job queue was being held, and to come back tomorrow :mad:. I don't miss those days at all. I had one programming class where the final project took up a box and a half of punched cards, which I had to carry around with me. You ever done a floor sort on 1500 punched cards? It ain't pretty.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Ted Ferenc wrote:
compile, link and run took half a day, so you just had reams of fanfold paper on your desk
Sounds like when I started school. You'd feed your deck of cards (yes, punched cards) in the reader, and then wait for your run to finish. And wait. And wait. Smoke a cigarette and wait. Go to the john and wait. Wait some more. The operator at the reader window would then announce that the student job queue was being held, and to come back tomorrow :mad:. I don't miss those days at all. I had one programming class where the final project took up a box and a half of punched cards, which I had to carry around with me. You ever done a floor sort on 1500 punched cards? It ain't pretty.
Software Zen:
delete this;Yup been there, done it! When paper tape came out I remember thinking wow this is a REAL improvement over cards. But in those days you had to get the program to work correctly first time, as an overnight batch run did not give you a lot of help fixing 'bugs'. I still hate in when I hear people saying we have to spend X days finding bugs, I feel like hitting them and saying you **** the bugs are their because you put them there, take more care of the design and programming, and there won't be any bugs. But saying that I do fall into that trap myself these days, it is easy to hack the code, use a souce code debugger, 'fix' the bug and repeat!
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for - in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman