One of the more interesting and very useful features added (only in the Ultimate edition, unfortunately) is IntelliTrace historical debugging. The ability to debug an application while in effect manipulating time (going backwards in the execution history, for example) is known as Omniscient Debugging. The term is properly used when referring to the eponymous open source debugger by Bill Lewis, a computer scientist at Lambda Computer Science and Tufts University, but has become part of the vernacular and a synecdoche for such debuggers.
For readers that are not programmers, the "debugging" of programs is part of the life of any developer. Any sufficiently complex application is likely to have a few "bugs", cases where the expected behavior of the application is not observed to happen. This can be caused by any number of things, from incorrect specification of the design, mistakes in translating the design into program code, use cases that were not considered, bugs in the very tools used to produce the application, etc.
By way of example, let us consider the following tiny application (written in a form of psuedocode):
(define add_two_numbers using Number1, Number2 as (return Number1 * Number2))
The developer hands this off to the users, who start using the new routine add_two_numbers:
add_two_numbers 0,0 → 0
add_two_numbers 2,2 → 4
add_two_numbers 4,4 → 16
Oops! The first two test cases return the proper expected results, but the third returns 16 instead of the expected 8. In our admittedly trival example, we can see from visual inspection the programmer mistakenly put the multiplication operator "*" where the addition operator "+" should have been.
In real applications, mistakes may be buried in hundreds of thousands of lines of program code, and visual inspection is seldom practical. This is where the traditional debugger comes into play for the developer.
A debugger allows the programmer to observe the execution of the application under consideration, by showing exactly where in the execution stream the application is, and allowing the viewing and changing of variables and storage for the application, setting "breakpoints" where the programmer wishes to temporarily halt the execution, stepping through the execution one step at a time, stopping when certain conditions are met, and in some cases even allowing the changing of the program's state.
At that point, the developer could step through the execution of the routine, observing the flow through the source code step-by-step. The source of the problem would of course become apparent, and could be quickly remedied.
In the case of severe bugs, an application may "crash". In some cases, a "crash dump" will be produced by the execution environment. This contains information about the state of the application at the time of the crash. This information can be used by the developer with the debugger to analyze the state of the application when it crashed, and observer the contents of variables, the place in the source code the execution was at the moment of the crash, and basic information about the path by which the application came to that place.
A core problem with this model of debugging, however, is that detailed information about the execution path and program states leading up to the bug or crash is generally not available, even in a detailed crash dump file. This forces the developer to deduce where the problem might be and then test that hypothesis with the debugger by setting conditions and breakpoints while analyzing the application flow. This will usually lead to a more refined hypothesis, leading to further debugging, leading to a more refined hypothesis, nearly ad infinitum (or at least it can feel that way) until the problem is found. In cases where the bug is sporadic, the programmer may have difficulty even reproducing the problem.
This can be a very time consuming and taxing practice for the programmer involved!
Ideally, the programmer would be able to observe the state of execution for the application at any point in time of the execution lifetime.
That is precisely the capability that omniscient debugging brings to the tool set of the programmer. The concept of such historical debugging has been around for decades, but implementations proved impractical for most of this time. The first truly practical and usable example is surely the Omniscient Debugger (ODB) of Bill Lewis. A very detailed paper by Bill can be seen in Debugging Backwards in Time, and a most interesting video lecture of the same name is hosted by Google. You can view these to garner details on how this functionality is achieved, with examples of the kinds of bugs that are vastly simpler to find by taking advantage of this kind of technology.
With Visual Studio 2010, Microsoft has incorporated and extended this capability and technology, calling it IntelliTrace. Supporting the historical debugging of managed C# and Visual Basic, with experimental support for F#, the product promises to make the work of developers on the Microsoft platform vastly more productive. Details of the new capabilities can be found in the MSDN articles Debugging With IntelliTrace and Debugging Applications with IntelliTrace.
Open source developers can avail themselves of historical debugging with the aforementioned ODB, TOD and GDB debuggers.
I know what you're thinking. More importantly, I know what you were thinking...
No comments:
Post a Comment