From: Jonny Grant <jg@jguk.org>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,
gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Recursive SIGSEGV question
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 02:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3f191a23-97c3-3f40-3760-8f41074901e0@jguk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ba3ff67f217221f0a9a2cc99b9b5816f9d784bf6.camel@mengyan1223.wang>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5064 bytes --]
On 28/03/2019 04:59, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On 2019-03-27 23:47 +0000, Jonny Grant wrote:
>>
>> On 27/03/2019 21:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:27, Jonny Grant wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your reply and input.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe GCC's "libbacktrace" module could be used?
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering if -fsanitize=address would output a backtrace for the
>>>> C++ exception, but it doesn't seem to. Also it actually prevents the
>>>> core being dumped - that's probably not intended?
>>>>
>>>> Compile without Sanitizer, and it does dump the core to a file at least!
>>>>
>>>> $ export UBSAN_OPTIONS=print_stacktrace=1
>>>
>>> This is a UBsan option.
>>>
>>>> // g++-8 -fsanitize=address -Wall -o exception exception.cpp
>>>
>>> But you're not using UBsan.
>>>
>>>> #include <vector>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> std::vector<int> v;
>>>> return v.at(0);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> $ ./exception
>>>> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::out_of_range'
>>>> what(): vector::_M_range_check: __n (which is 0) >= this->size()
>>>> (which is 0)
>>>> Aborted
>>>
>>> There's no undefined behaviour or memory corruption here, so it's not
>>> surprising that UBsan and Asan don't print anything.
>
> C++ exception is a well-defined language feature. There are even guys
> (mis)using it in cases we normally use "if (...) {...}"
>
>> Ok I see, thank you for pointing this out.
>>
>> I did wonder, as -fsanitize=address seems to inhibit the core dump that
>> is otherwise created by the abort() that appears to be called - is that
>> a known issue?
>>
>> $ g++-8 -Wall -o exception exception.cpp
>> jonny@asus:~/code/crash$ ./exception
>> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::out_of_range'
>> what(): vector::_M_range_check: __n (which is 0) >= this->size()
>> (which is 0)
>> Aborted (core dumped)
>> $
>>
>> Usually I just load the core dump into GDB to take a look at it.
>
> It seems so. I don't know if this is a intentional feature or an oversight.
>
>>> If you want a stack trace for exceptions that terminate the process
>>> then you could install a custom terminate handler which does that.
>>> Libstdc++'s default terminate handler just prints the message above,
>>> which includes the type of the exception and if it's a type derived
>>> from std::exception, the what() string stored in it.
>>
>> Yes, I'd love to have a stack trace for exceptions that terminate the
>> process. Do you know a simple example you can refer me to? I've looked
>> and there are people using boost::stacktrace::stacktrace() but I'd
>> rather not link to boost as a dependency.
>>
>> It would be great if there was a glibc option to do this, or GCC could
>> insert it.
>
>> Otherwise we each need to insert our own stack tracers...
>>
>> Found this:
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html
>>
>> I added this (attached) to a C++ exception handler, but there's no file
>> and line numbers. Other examples resort to calling addr2line! Seems a
>> bit over the top for us each to code our own stack tracer... Or reading
>> symbols etc. Am I asking too much for a general print_backtrace() in
>> libc or elsewhere ?
>
> Providing backtrace with file:line requires to parse debug info.
>
> glibc libSegFault.so just record a stack bracktrace w/o line numbers. The shell
> wrapper catchsegv convert addresses into line numbers calling addr2line.
Hi!
libSegFault.so seems like a big module! If it only records stack frames
like the backtrace() and backtrace_symbols() functions get in around 10
lines of code. Maybe libSegFault does a lot more than it seems. I was
using these functions
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Backtraces.html
catchsegv doesn't show line numbers for me:
backtrace:
./loop(+0x9ae)[0x55ee7f23e9ae]
./loop(+0xa03)[0x55ee7f23ea03]
./loop(+0xa03)[0x55ee7f23ea03]
[repeats]
This is the stack overflow testcase. Please find attached.
The file does have the info:
$ addr2line -e loop 0xa03
/home/jonny/code/crash/loop.cpp:7 (discriminator 4)
>
> If you don't want to call addr2line (or other tools) you'll need DWARF parser in
> the executable. Why should we bloat the executable with a lot of code which
> should be in (and has been in) a debugger?
>
> For a comparision, Go provides a good stack backtrace at panics. But how big a
> Go executable is? A "hello world" takes 1997502 bytes! While a C++ one
> compiled by G++ is 22088 bytes (with debug info).
My little test exception file leaps up from 31K to 81K when compiled
with backtrace() and backtrace_symbols() A lot of increase...
Considering they are library functions I am surprised its 50K bigger.
I've not attached that program, but can share if needed..
> If you need a backtrace in debug, just call a debugger. If you think you'll
> need it in _release_, I believe the right thing to do is catching the exceptions
> (or handle the signals) you care and log them into a log file or a syslog
> facility.
Sounds good! Yes, that sounds good.
Jonny
[-- Attachment #2: loop.cpp --]
[-- Type: text/x-c++src, Size: 175 bytes --]
// g++-8 -ggdb -g -O0 -o loop loop.cpp
#include <string>
static void func(std::string f, int g)
{
func(f.c_str(), g);
}
int main()
{
func("a", 0);
return 0;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-29 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-19 22:05 Jonny Grant
2019-03-20 4:02 ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-20 8:11 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-25 13:23 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-25 13:27 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-25 13:56 ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-25 14:01 ` Xi Ruoyao
2019-03-25 15:47 ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-25 16:10 ` Andrew Haley
2019-03-25 16:13 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-25 16:23 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-25 18:51 ` Florian Weimer
2019-03-25 20:39 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-26 6:50 ` Xi Ruoyao
2019-03-27 0:29 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-27 21:34 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-27 23:43 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-27 23:51 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-28 8:26 ` Xi Ruoyao
2019-03-28 11:52 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-29 2:24 ` Jonny Grant [this message]
2019-03-30 17:32 ` Jonny Grant
2023-02-19 21:21 ` Jonny Grant
2023-02-19 21:34 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-28 13:55 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-28 14:39 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-28 14:39 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-03-25 20:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-03-25 18:56 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-03-25 22:05 ` Jonny Grant
2019-03-26 10:20 ` Xi Ruoyao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3f191a23-97c3-3f40-3760-8f41074901e0@jguk.org \
--to=jg@jguk.org \
--cc=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=xry111@mengyan1223.wang \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).