Why all programs are divided into 200 basic blocks by Valgrind? And how to divided?
First Question
It's been some time since I've worked on a Valgrind tool (even longer than this question is old), but in case anyone is still interested, here's what I've dredged up from memory:
First, a distinction: a super block is a bit different from a basic block. Valgrind uses super blocks, not basic blocks. A super block may exit at any point, but a basic block will only ever exit by running off its end.
Valgrind doesn't divide a program into 200 super blocks. I'm pretty sure that it instead breaks programs up into super blocks of no more than 200 IRStatements (which may or may not translate directly into instructions).
The reason for this I'm pretty sure is for efficiency of the translator: at least with current versions of Valgrind I'm reasonably sure it doesn't translate your entire program up front. Translating the program into its IR format is time consuming and resource intensive, so the translator seeks to only translate as much of the program as it needs to. It does this by only translating code as it gets executed for the first time.
Second Question
Now, as to your second question... I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking, "How does Valgrind decide how to divide up the program?", then the answer is that it decides similarly to a compiler. It starts converting the program into super blocks, and starts a new super block whenever it reaches the block limit size or detects that there is an entry point into the block from elsewhere (super blocks and basic blocks can only have one entry point).
If you instead meant, "Can I change the size of an IRSB super block?", then yes, there is an option you can pass back to Valgrind in your tools initialization code to tell it what size super blocks you want (although I don't recall if you can increase this to an arbitrary size). None of this is documented online, and only sparsely documented in the files themselves. You can take a look at the source to the other tools to see how they pass configuration options to Valgrind during initialization. That should at least give you a good idea on which headers to look at to figure out what option you need to pass back to Valgrind.
Related
My Labview Program works like a charm, until I look at the Block Diagram. No changes are made. I do not Save. Just Ctrl+E and then Ctrl+R.
Now it does not work properly. Only a Restart of Labview fixes the problem.
My Program controls two Scanner arrays for Laser Cutting simultaneously. To force parallel working, I use the Error handler and loops that wait for a signal from the Scanner. But suddenly some loops run more often than they should.
What does majorly happen in Labview when I open the Block diagram that messes with my code?
Edit:
Its hard to tell what is happening without violating my non-disclosure agreement.
I'm controlling two independent mirror-Arrays for Laser Cutting. While one is running one Cutting-Job, the other is supposed to run the other Jobs. Just very fast. When the first is finished they meet at the same position and run the same geometry at the same slow speed. The jobs are provided as *.XML and stored as .net Objects. The device only runs the most recent job and overwrites it when getting a new one.
I can check if a job is still running. While this is true I run a while loop for the other jobs. Now this loop runs a few times too often and even ignores WAIT-blocks to a degree. Also it skips the part where it reads the XML job file, changes the speed part back to fast again and saves it. It only runs one time fast.
#Joe: No it does not. It only runs once well. afterwards it does not.
Youtube links
The way it is supposed to move
The wrong way
There is exactly one thing I can think of that changes solely by opening the block diagram.
When the block diagram opens, any commented-out or unreachable-code-compiler-eliminated sections of code will load their subVIs. If one of those commented out sections of code were somehow interfere with your running code, you might have an issue.
There are only two ways I know of for that to interfere... both of them are fairly improbable.
a) You have some sort of "check for all VIs in memory" or "check for all types in memory" that you're using as a plug-in system. When the commented-out sections load, that would change the VIs in memory. Such systems are not uncommon when parsing XML, so maybe.
b) You are using Run VI method for some dynamically invoked VI to execute as a top-level VI, but by loading the diagram, it discovers that it is a subVI of your current program. A VI cannot simultaneously be top-level and a subVI, so the call to Run VI returns an error.
That's it. I can't think of anything else. Both ideas seem unlikely, but given your claim and a lack of a block diagram, I figured I'd post it as a hypothesis.
In the improbable case someone has a similar problem. The problem was a xml file that was read during run time. Sometimes multiple instances tried to access it and this produced the error.
Quick point to check: are Debug and "retain data in wires" disabled? While it may not change the computations, but it may certainly change the timing of very tight loops, and that was one of the unexpected program behaviors, OP was referring to.
I was wondering if there were a way to compute the size of a reg in Verilog. I researched it quite a bit, and found $size(a), but it's only in SystemVerilog, and it won't work in my verilog program.
Does anyone know an alternative for this??
I also wanted to ask as a side note; I'm having some trouble with my test bench in the sense that when I update a value in the file, that change is not taken in consideration when I simulate. I've been told I might have been using an old test bench but the one I am continuously simulating is the only one available in this project.
EDIT:
To give you an idea of what's the problem: in my code there is a "start" signal and when it is set to 1, the operation starts. Otherwise, it stays idle. I began writing the test bench with start=0, tested it and simulated it, then edited the test bench by setting start to 1. But when I simulate it, the start signal remains 0 in the waveform. I tried to check whether I was using another test bench, but it is the only test bench I am using in this project.
Given that I was on a deadline, I worked on the code so that it would adapt to the "frozen" test bench. I am getting now all the results I want, but I wanted to test some other features of my code, so I created a new project and copy pasted the code in new files (including the same test bench). But when I ran a simulation, the waveform displayed wrong results (even though I was using the exact same code in all modules and test bench). Any idea why?
Any help would be appreciated :)
There is a standardised way to do this, but it requires you to use the VPI, which I don't think you get on Modelsim's student edition. In short, you have to write C code, and dynamically link it to the simulator. In the C code, you can get object properties using routines such as vpi_get. Useful properites might be vpiSize, which is what you want, vpiLeftRange, vpiRightRange, and so on.
Having said all that, Verilog is essentially a static language, and objects have to be declared with a static width using constant expressions. Having a run-time method to determine an object's size is therefore of pretty limited value (since you should already know it), and may not solve whatever problem you actually have. Your question would make more sense for VHDL (and SystemVerilog?), which are much more dynamic.
Note on Icarus: the developers have pushed lots of SystemVerilog stuff back into the main language. If you take advantge of this you may find that your code is not portable.
Second part of your question: you need to be specific on what your problem actually is.
From what experience I have programming whenever a program has a problem it crashes, whether it is from an unhanded exception or a piece of code that should have been checked for errors, but was not and threw one. What would cause a program to completely freeze a system to the point of requiring a restart.
Edit: Thanks for the answers. As for the language and OS this question was inspired by me playing Fallout and the game freezing twice in an hour causing me to have to restart the xbox, so I am guessing c++.
A million different things. The most common that come to mind are:
Spawning too many threads or processes, which drowns the OS scheduler.
Gobbling too much RAM, which puts the memory manager into page-fault hell.
In a Dotnet/Java type environment its quite difficult to seize a system up, because the Runtime keeps you code at a distance from the OS.
Closer to the metal say C or C++, Assembly etc you have to play fair with the rest of the system - If you dont have it already grab a copy of Petzold and observe/experiment yourself with the amount of 'boilerplate' code to get a single Window running...
Even closer, down at the driver level all sorts of things can happen...
There are number of reasons, being internal or external that leads to deadlocked application, more general case is when something is being asked for by a program but is not given that leads to infinite waiting, the practical example to this is, a program writes some text to a file, but when it is about to open a file for writing, same file is opened by any other application, so the requesting app will wait (freeze in some cases if not coded properly) until it gets exclusive control of the file.
And a critical freeze that leads to restarting the system is when the file which is asked for is something which very important for the OS. However, you may not need to restart the system in order to get it back to normal, unless the program which was frozen is written in a language that produces native binary, i.e. C/C++ to be precise. So if application is written in a language which works with the concept of managed code, like any .NET language, it will not need a system restart to get things back to normal.
page faults, trying to access inaccessible data or memory(acces violation), incompatible data types etc.
Would it be possible to take the source code from a SNES emulator (or any other game system emulator for that matter) and a game ROM for the system, and somehow create a single self-contained executable that lets you play that particular ROM without needing either the individual rom or the emulator itself to play? Would it be difficult, assuming you've already got the rom and the emulator source code to work with?
It shouldn't be too difficult if you have the emulator source code. You can use a method that is often used to store images in c source files.
Basically, what you need to do is create a char * variable in a header file, and store the contents of the rom file in that variable. You may want to write a script to automate this for you.
Then, you will need to alter the source code so that instead of reading the rom in from a file, it uses the in memory version of the rom, stored in your variable and included from your header file.
It may require a little bit of work if you need to emulate file pointers and such, or you may be lucky and find that the rom loading function just loads the whole file in at once. In this case it would probably be as simple as replacing the file load function with a function to return your pointer.
However, be careful for licensing issues. If the emulator is licensed under the GPL, you may not be legally allowed to store a proprietary file in the executable, so it would be worth checking that, especially before you release / distribute it (if you plan to do so).
Yes, more than possible, been done many times. Google: static binary translation. Graham Toal has a good howto paper on the subject, should show up early in the hits. There may be some code out there I may have left some code out there.
Completely removing the rom may be a bit more work than you think, but not using an emulator, definitely possible. Actually, both requirements are possible and you may be surprised how many of the handheld console games or set top box games are translated and not emulated. Esp platforms like those from Nintendo where there isnt enough processing power to emulate in real time.
You need a good emulator as a reference and/or write your own emulator as a reference. Then you need to write a disassembler, then you have that disassembler generate C code (please dont try to translate directly to another target, I made that mistake once, C is portable and the compilers will take care of a lot of dead code elimination for you). So an instruction of a make believe instruction set might be:
add r0,r0,#2
And that may translate into:
//add r0,r0,#2
r0=r0+2;
do_zflag(r0);
do_nflag(r0);
It looks like the SNES is related to the 6502 which is what Asteroids used, which is the translation I have been working on off and on for a while now as a hobby. The emulator you are using is probably written and tuned for runtime performance and may be difficult at best to use as a reference and to check in lock step with the translated code. The 6502 is nice because compared to say the z80 there really are not that many instructions. As with any variable word length instruction set the disassembler is your first big hurdle. Do not think linearly, think execution order, think like an emulator, you cannot linearly translate instructions from zero to N or N down to zero. You have to follow all the possible execution paths, marking bytes in the rom as being the first byte of an instruction, and not the first byte of an instruction. Some bytes you can decode as data and if you choose mark those, otherwise assume all other bytes are data or fill. Figuring out what to do with this data to get rid of the rom is the problem with getting rid of the rom. Some code addresses data directly others use register indirect meaning at translation time you have no idea where that data is or how much of it there is. Once you have marked all the starting bytes for instructions then it is a trivial task to walk the rom from zero to N disassembling and or translating.
Good luck, enjoy, it is well worth the experience.
I've been experimenting with creating an interpreter for Brainfuck, and while quite simple to make and get up and running, part of me wants to be able to run tests against it. I can't seem to fathom how many tests one might have to write to test all the possible instruction combinations to ensure that the implementation is proper.
Obviously, with Brainfuck, the instruction set is small, but I can't help but think that as more instructions are added, your test code would grow exponentially. More so than your typical tests at any rate.
Now, I'm about as newbie as you can get in terms of writing compilers and interpreters, so my assumptions could very well be way off base.
Basically, where do you even begin with testing on something like this?
Testing a compiler is a little different from testing some other kinds of apps, because it's OK for the compiler to produce different assembly-code versions of a program as long as they all do the right thing. However, if you're just testing an interpreter, it's pretty much the same as any other text-based application. Here is a Unix-centric view:
You will want to build up a regression test suite. Each test should have
Source code you will interpret, say test001.bf
Standard input to the program you will interpret, say test001.0
What you expect the interpreter to produce on standard output, say test001.1
What you expect the interpreter to produce on standard error, say test001.2 (you care about standard error because you want to test your interpreter's error messages)
You will need a "run test" script that does something like the following
function fail {
echo "Unexpected differences on $1:"
diff $2 $3
exit 1
}
for testname
do
tmp1=$(tempfile)
tmp2=$(tempfile)
brainfuck $testname.bf < $testname.0 > $tmp1 2> $tmp2
[ cmp -s $testname.1 $tmp1 ] || fail "stdout" $testname.1 $tmp1
[ cmp -s $testname.2 $tmp2 ] || fail "stderr" $testname.2 $tmp2
done
You will find it helpful to have a "create test" script that does something like
brainfuck $testname.bf < $testname.0 > $testname.1 2> $testname.2
You run this only when you're totally confident that the interpreter works for that case.
You keep your test suite under source control.
It's convenient to embellish your test script so you can leave out files that are expected to be empty.
Any time anything changes, you re-run all the tests. You probably also re-run them all nightly via a cron job.
Finally, you want to add enough tests to get good test coverage of your compiler's source code. The quality of coverage tools varies widely, but GNU Gcov is an adequate coverage tool.
Good luck with your interpreter! If you want to see a lovingly crafted but not very well documented testing infrastructure, go look at the test2 directory for the Quick C-- compiler.
I don't think there's anything 'special' about testing a compiler; in a sense it's almost easier than testing some programs, since a compiler has such a basic high-level summary - you hand in source, it gives you back (possibly) compiled code and (possibly) a set of diagnostic messages.
Like any complex software entity, there will be many code paths, but since it's all very data-oriented (text in, text and bytes out) it's straightforward to author tests.
I’ve written an article on compiler testing, the original conclusion of which (slightly toned down for publication) was: It’s morally wrong to reinvent the wheel. Unless you already know all about the preexisting solutions and have a very good reason for ignoring them, you should start by looking at the tools that already exist. The easiest place to start is Gnu C Torture, but bear in mind that it’s based on Deja Gnu, which has, shall we say, issues. (It took me six attempts even to get the maintainer to allow a critical bug report about the Hello World example onto the mailing list.)
I’ll immodestly suggest that you look at the following as a starting place for tools to investigate:
Software: Practice and Experience April 2007. (Payware, not available to the general public---free preprint at http://pobox.com/~flash/Practical_Testing_of_C99.pdf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler_correctness#Testing (Largely written by me.)
Compiler testing bibliography (Please let me know of any updates I’ve missed.)
In the case of brainfuck, I think testing it should be done with brainfuck scripts. I would test the following, though:
1: Are all the cells initialized to 0
2: What happens when you decrement the data pointer when it's currently pointing to the first cell? Does it wrap? Does it point to invalid memory?
3: What happens when you increment the data pointer when it's pointing at the last cell? Does it wrap? Does it point to invalid memory
4: Does output function correctly
5: Does input function correctly
6: Does the [ ] stuff work correctly
7: What happens when you increment a byte more than 255 times, does it wrap to 0 properly, or is it incorrectly treated as an integer or other value.
More tests are possible too, but this is probably where i'd start. I wrote a BF compiler a few years ago, and that had a few extra tests. Particularly I tested the [ ] stuff heavily, by having a lot of code inside the block, since an early version of my code generator had issues there (on x86 using a jxx I had issues when the block produced more than 128 bytes or so of code, resulting in invalid x86 asm).
You can test with some already written apps.
The secret is to:
Separate the concerns
Observe the law of Demeter
Inject your dependencies
Well, software that is hard to test is a sign that the developer wrote it like it's 1985. Sorry to say that, but utilizing the three principles I presented here, even line numbered BASIC would be unit testable (it IS possible to inject dependencies into BASIC, because you can do "goto variable".