Code::Blocks Forums

Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) => Development => Topic started by: Zorroslade on September 09, 2010, 05:14:13 pm

Title: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: Zorroslade on September 09, 2010, 05:14:13 pm

Not sure if this is the place to report an anomaly/bug.

We are using CodeBlocks 10.05 (from May) on Debian and wx2.8.10 (32 bit).

In the memory window while debugging, a "Ta" (without quotes) shows up. It only shows up for static variables. If the static variable is greater than 8 bytes, it shows up every 8th byte. This artifact is prolly from gdb for static memory and not handled correctly. I did not find any info on the web about it.

Later,
Title: Re: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: oBFusCATed on September 09, 2010, 05:36:53 pm
Enable the debugger's debug log ( Settings -> Compiler & Debugger -> Debugger ) and paste the log in a [ code ] tags.
Title: Re: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: Zorroslade on September 09, 2010, 11:04:49 pm
Here is the dump for the static variable.

> x/256xb rcptBuf
0x85267a0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267a8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+8>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267b0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+16>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267b8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+24>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267c0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+32>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267c8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+40>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267d0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+48>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267d8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+56>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267e0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+64>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267e8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+72>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267f0 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+80>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x85267f8 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+88>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526800 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+96>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526808 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+104>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526810 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+112>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526818 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+120>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526820 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+128>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526828 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+136>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526830 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+144>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526838 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+152>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526840 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+160>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526848 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+168>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526850 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+176>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526858 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+184>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526860 <RS485TxTask::taskProc()::rcptBuf+192>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526868 <CZeusTask::_instance>:   0xc8   0x5e   0x7f   0x08   0x5c   0x59   0x75   0x08
0x8526870 <_ZL21emptyCriteriaDefsList>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526878:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526880 <_ZL21emptyCriteriaDefsList>:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526888:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526890:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00
0x8526898:   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00   0x00

Thx.
Title: Re: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: oBFusCATed on September 10, 2010, 12:32:34 am
Hm, seems that the output is different than the expected one.

Can you provide a minimal sample project to reproduce the bug?
Title: Re: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: Zorroslade on September 15, 2010, 05:12:36 pm
Sorry for the delay.

Here is some sample code.

class TestxTest
  {
  public:
    TestxTest() {};
    ~TestxTest() {};

    void fct();
  };

void TestxTest::fct()
  {
  static char var1[200];
  for (int cnt = 0; cnt < 200; cnt++)
    var1[cnt] = cnt;
  }

class TestXTest
  {
  public:
    TestXTest() {};
    ~TestXTest() {};

    void fctText();
  };

void TestXTest::fctText()
  {
  static char var1[200];
  for (int cnt = 0; cnt < 200; cnt++)
    var1[cnt] = cnt;
  }



int main()
  {
  TestxTest xTest;
  TestXTest XTest;

  xTest.fct();

  XTest.fctText();

  cout << "Hello world!" << endl;
  return 0;
  }

It looks like the loop control for displaying static data is one larger than it should be.

Later,

Title: Re: Examine memory widow anomaly
Post by: oBFusCATed on September 15, 2010, 11:21:41 pm
Reproduced, thank you

I hope, I will have a patch in the next couple of days...

p.s. here is a patch that tries to fix the problem: http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,10908.msg89584.html#msg89584