So here’s a cool feature of GNU’s implementation of libc: you can get a stack backtrace (as an array of strings) dynamically in your code. This can be really useful when trying to determine the code path taken when an error occurs. Most times, it’s faster to just run the code in a debugger and use it to display a backtrace, but there are instances when doing it programmatically is your best option. For example, you could get a backtrace in your application’s exception handler and use it to augment error log messages.

First, you need to include execinfo.h to your code:

#include <execinfo.h>

Next, call the backtrace() function to get an array of void pointers that represents the current stack (the pointers are the return addresses for each stack frame).

void* tracePtrs[100];
int count = backtrace( tracePtrs, 100 );

The backtrace() function returns the number of entries in the array (read the man pages for more info about the array size).

Finally, you need to resolve the function names associated with the pointers. You have 2 options: backtrace_symbols() and backtrace_symbols_fd(). Both of these methods resolve the pointers to strings, but the difference is that backtrace_symbols() allocates the strings on the heap while backtrace_symbols_fd() writes the strings to a file descriptor that you can read. Just keep in mind that backtrace_symbols() won’t work if the heap has been trashed.

Here’s an example using backtrace_symbols():

char** funcNames = backtrace_symbols( tracePtrs, count );

// Print the stack trace
for( int ii = 0; ii < count; ii++ )
   printf( “%s\n”, funcNames[ii] );

// Free the string pointers
free( funcNames );

NOTE: Make sure you call free() on the array of strings returned from backtrace_symbols().

For more information, here’s a good article from the Linux Journal.

The Windows development environment provided by VisualStudio has some neat tools for detecting memory leaks in code. You simply #define _CRTDBG_MAP_ALLOC before including your headers, and #include <crtdbg.h> as the last header:

#define _CRTDBG_MAP_ALLOC

// Include header files here

#include <crtdbg.h>

Then, you call _CrtDumpMemoryLeaks() before your application exits. If your program exits at many points, you can alternatively call _CrtSetDbgFlag( _CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF ) at the beginning of you application, which will cause the leaks to also be printed when it exits. The results are printed to the Debug Window and look like the following:

Detected memory leaks!
Dumping objects ->
C:\PROGRAM FILES\VISUAL STUDIO\MyProjects\leaktest\leaktest.cpp(20) : {18}
normal block at 0×00780E80, 64 bytes long.
Data: < > CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Object dump complete.

Cool, Huh?! However, some libraries don’t play nice with this, as I explain below.

Read the rest…

Debugging C++ templates is difficult. Debugging C++ templates with GDB can be an act of torture for even seasoned GDB users. I like GDB, but there are some tricks you should know when using it to debug templates. In this post, I deal with setting breakpoints.

Breakpoint Basics:

Setting a breakpoint in GDB is supposed to be simple. Here we set a breakpoint at line 50 in file main.cpp:

(gdb) b main.cpp:50
Breakpoint 1 at 0×804937a: file main.cpp, line 50.

We can also use the function name and GDB will attempt to find the correct location for us:

(gdb) b DoSomething
Breakpoint 2 at 0×8049334: file main.cpp, line 150

Simple, right? Just wait…

Breakpoint Gotchas:

GDB’s breakpoint logic is pretty handy for simple projects, but it can break down fast when things get more complicated.

For example, let’s say your application is plugin-driven, with each plugin being a separate library. Now assume each plugin has a Plugin.cpp file under it’s own Source directory. Try to set a breakpoint in the Initialize() method of the Plugin class:

(gdb) b Initialize
Breakpoint 3 at 0×8049717: file main.cpp, line 230

Oops! There is an Initialize() method in main.cpp and GDB thought that’s where we wanted to put it: wrong!

Read the rest…

Here’s great diagram of the Direct3D 9.0 graphic pipeline (thanks Amanda for bringing this to my attention). I know DirectX 10 is out, but this diagram serves as a good reference for anyone interested in the nitty-gritty of a 3D graphics pipeline.

The SDTimes has an article up about a new operating system Microsoft is working on called “Midori”. It is based on their “Singularity” OS, with everything being written in managed code then natively compiled.  Rumor has it that this is the follow-on to the Windows platform… we’ll see if it ever materializes commercially. SDTimes bases the article on some internal documents they got access to, which may be why we haven’t seen this level of detail before (see the entry in Wikipedia). From the article:

According to the documentation, Midori will be built with an asynchronous-only architecture that is built for task concurrency and parallel use of local and distributed resources, with a distributed component-based and data-driven application model, and dynamic management of power and other resources.

The Midori documents foresee applications running across a multitude of topologies, ranging from client-server and multi-tier deployments to peer-to-peer at the edge, and in the cloud data center. Those topologies form a heterogeneous mesh where capabilities can exist at separate places.

In order to efficiently distribute applications across nodes, Midori will introduce a higher-level application model that abstracts the details of physical machines and processors. The model will be consistent for both the distributed and local concurrency layers, and it is internally known as Asynchronous Promise Architecture.

…operating system services, such as storage, would either be provided to the applications by the OS or be discovered across a trusted distributed environment.

Read the rest…

Introduction

If you’ve ever done embedded development in C/C++, you are probably familiar with bitfields. They are a handy way to reference individual bits in things like hardware registers. The problem is that bitfields can lead to performance problems and race conditions if not used properly. I hope to highlight some of the issues you should consider when using them.

Usage

First, let’s assume you need to check various fields in a hardware register with the following layout:

You could define the following bitfield to represent this register:

1: struct HwReg
2: {
3:    unsigned int Base : 16;
4:    unsigned int Offset : 8;
5:    unsigned int Rsvd : 5;
6:    unsigned int Flag : 1;
7:    unsigned int Type : 2;
8: };

The total size of this data type is sizeof(unsigned int), with each line defining a different region (field) within that type (this looks confusing when you first look at it). The following code uses the HwReg bitfield to access a memory-mapped register:

1: struct HwReg* pReg = (struct HwReg*)0×80001005;
2:
3: if (pReg->Flag && pReg->Type == TYPE_1)
4: {
5:    void* address = pReg->Base + pReg->Offset;
6: }

Line 1 defines a pointer to the physical hardware register as type HwReg. We can now use this pointer to easily access the register fields. If this isn’t clear, you can read more about bitfields HERE.

Performance Problems

The compiler doesn’t know how to optimize bitfield accesses (especially because the pointers to memory-mapped hardware registers are almost always declared ‘volatile’). This means that every access to a member of the bitfield will require a read of the physical hardware register. This can be orders of magnitude slower than accessing main memory. In the code example above, the hardware register will be read 4 times; once for each field access.

The way to remedy this is to cache a copy of the register value and then operate on that. Consider the following code:

1: unsigned int* pFullReg = (unsigned int*)0×80001005;
2: unsigned int temp = *pFullReg;
3: struct HwReg* pReg = (struct HwReg*)&temp;
4:
5: if (pReg->Flag && pReg->Type == TYPE_1)
6: {
7:    void* address = pReg->Base + pReg->Offset;
8: }

Line 1 defines a pointer to the physical hardware register. Line 2 performs the actual read into a local variable (the slowest part). This local copy is now in main memory and the CPU cache. Line 3 casts the cached value to the bitfield for easy access. Finally, all accesses to the register fields is on the cached value, which can be read very fast from L1 cache.

Another advantage to this approach is when the hardware requires locking before the register can be accessed. By caching the value, you can keep all the locking code localized to a single area of the function. Without caching, you would hold the lock for a longer period of time (possibly forcing other operations to block) and have to make sure to release the lock on every return path (more difficult with exceptions).

NOTE: Remember you are only working with a copy of the register value. If you update a value in the bitfield, you must still copy the updated value back to the register.

Race Conditions

As stated above, each access to a field value generates its own read/write operation. Even if the CPU architecture guarantees that an individual operation is atomic, updating multiple fields are not. Thus, in a multi-threaded application you must lock the entire block of code that operates on the bitfield. I again suggest caching the value, as you only need to lock the actual read/write of the entire register.

Conclusion

Bitfields are a nice language construct that can help make it easier to write clean code (as opposed to using macros and bitmasks). Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to shoot-yourself-in-the-foot with bitfields if you don’t understand the pitfalls. As always, use caution when writing performance-critical code and make sure you understand how to use the available code constructs.

Happy coding!

My friend Rob (whom I share an office at work with) made the mistake of sending me the following picture, which I couldn’t resist turning into a motivational poster. I’m just having trouble coming up with the perfect tag line… Comments welcome.

… and my favorite:

I found this great site MoBuck.com that allows you to easily create your own motivational posters. For $1, you can download a high-resolution version, and for $14 they will send you a 8.5 x 11 inch print. It’s a lot of fun.

Here’s a Mr. T poster I made about not breaking the software build: