book cover

From Chapter 5, Debugging

This material is excerpted from Chapter 5 of
The Practice of Programming
by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike
(Addison-Wesley, 1999; ISBN 0-201-61586-X).
Copyright 1999 Lucent Technologies. All rights reserved.

Good Clues, Easy Bugs

Oops! Something is badly wrong. My program crashed, or printed nonsense, or seems to be running forever. Now what?

Beginners have a tendency to blame the compiler, the library, or anything other than their own code. Experienced programmers would love to do the same, but they know that, realistically, most problems are their own fault.

Fortunately, most bugs are simple and can be found with simple techniques. Examine the evidence in the erroneous output and try to infer how it could have been produced. Look at any debugging output before the crash; if possible get a stack trace from a debugger. Now you know something of what happened, and where. Pause to reflect. How could that happen? Reason back from the state of the crashed program to determine what could have caused this.

Debugging involves backwards reasoning, like solving murder mysteries. Something impossible occurred, and the only solid information is that it really did occur. So we must think backwards from the result to discover the reasons. Once we have a full explanation, we'll know what to fix and, along the way, likely discover a few other things we hadn't expected.

Look for familiar patterns.

    ...

Examine the most recent change.

    ...

Don't make the same mistake twice.

    ...

Debug it now, not later.

Being in too much of a hurry can hurt. Don't ignore a crash when it happens; track it down right away, since it may not happen again until it's too late. A famous example occurred on the Mars Pathfinder mission. After the flawless landing in July 1997 the spacecraft's computers tended to reset once a day or so, and the engineers were baffled. Once they tracked down the problem, they realized that they had seen that problem before. During pre-launch tests the resets had occurred, but had been ignored because the engineers were working on unrelated problems. So they were forced to deal with the problem later when the machine was tens of millions of miles away and much harder to fix.

Get a stack trace.

    ...

Read before typing.

    ...

Explain your code to someone else.

Another effective technique is to explain your code to someone else. This will often cause you to explain the bug to yourself. Sometimes it takes no more than a few sentences, followed by an embarrassed ``Never mind, I see what's wrong. Sorry to bother you.'' This works remarkably well; you can even use non-programmers as listeners. One university computer center kept a teddy bear near the help desk. Students with mysterious bugs were required to explain them to the bear before they could speak to a human counselor.

No Clues, Hard Bugs

``I haven't got a clue. What on earth is going on?'' If you really haven't any idea what could be wrong, life gets tougher.

Make the bug reproducible.

The first step is to make sure you can make the bug appear on demand. It's frustrating to chase down a bug that doesn't happen every time. Spend some time constructing input and parameter settings that reliably cause the problem, then wrap up the recipe so it can be run with a button push or a few keystrokes. If it's a hard bug, you'll be making it happen over and over as you track down the problem, so you'll save yourself time by making it easy to reproduce.

If the bug can't be made to happen every time, try to understand why not. Does some set of conditions make it happen more often than others? Even if you can't make it happen every time, if you can decrease the time spent waiting for it, you'll find it faster.

If a program provides debugging output, enable it. Simulation programs like the Markov chain program in Chapter 3 should include an option that produces debugging information such as the seed of the random number generator so that output can be reproduced; another option should allow for setting the seed. Many programs include such options and it is a good idea to include similar facilities in your own programs.

Divide and conquer.

Can the input that causes the program to fail be made smaller or more focused? Narrow down the possibilities by creating the smallest input where the bug still shows up. What changes make the error go away? Try to find crucial test cases that focus on the error. Each test case should aim at a definitive outcome that confirms or denies a specific hypothesis about what is wrong.

Proceed by binary search. Throw away half the input and see if the output is still wrong; if not, go back to the previous state and discard the other half of the input. The same binary search process can be used on the program text itself: eliminate some part of the program that should have no relationship to the bug and see if the bug is still there. An editor with undo is helpful in reducing big test cases and big programs without losing the bug.

Study the numerology of failures.

Sometimes a pattern in the numerology of failing examples gives a clue that focuses the search. We found some spelling mistakes in a newly written section of this book, where occasional letters had simply disappeared. This was mystifying. The text had been created by cutting and pasting from another file, so it seemed possible that something was wrong with the cut or paste commands in the text editor. But where to start looking for the problem? For clues we looked at the data, and noticed that the missing characters seemed uniformly distributed through the text. We measured the intervals and found that the distance between dropped characters was always 1023 bytes, a suspiciously non-random value. A search through the editor source code for numbers near 1024 found a couple of candidates. One of those was in new code, so we examined that first, and the bug was easy to spot, a classic off-by-one error where a null byte overwrote the last character in a 1024-byte buffer.

Studying the patterns of numbers related to the failure pointed us right at the bug. Elapsed time? A couple of minutes of mystification, five minutes of looking at the data to discover the pattern of missing characters, a minute to search for likely places to fix, and another minute to identify and eliminate the bug. This one would have been hopeless to find with a debugger, since it involved two multiprocess programs, driven by mouse clicks, communicating through a file system.

Display output to localize your search.

If you don't understand what the program is doing, adding statements to display more information can be the easiest, most cost-effective way to find out. Put them in to verify your understanding or refine your ideas of what's wrong. For example, display ``can't get here'' if you think it's not possible to reach a certain point in the code; then if you see that message, move the output statements back towards the start to figure out where things first begin to go wrong. Or show ``got here'' messages going forward, to find the last place where things seem to be working. Each message should be distinct so you can tell which one you're looking at.

Display messages in a compact fixed format so they are easy to scan by eye or with programs like the pattern-matching tool grep. (A grep-like program is invaluable for searching text. Chapter 9 includes a simple implementation.) If you're displaying the value of a variable, format it the same way each time. In C and C++, show pointers as hexadecimal numbers with %x or %p; this will help you to see whether two pointers have the same value or are related. Learn to read pointer values and recognize likely and unlikely ones, like zero, negative numbers, odd numbers, and small numbers. Familiarity with the form of addresses will pay off when you're using a debugger, too.

If output is potentially voluminous, it might be sufficient to print single-letter outputs like A, B, ..., as a compact display of where the program went.

Write self-checking code.

If more information is needed, you can write your own check function to test a condition, dump relevant variables, and abort the program:
/* check: test condition, print and die */
void check(char *s)
{
	if (var1 > var2) {
		printf("%s: var1 %d var2 %d\n", s, var1, var2);
		fflush(stdout); /* make sure all output is out */
		abort();        /* signal abnormal termination */
	}
}
We wrote check to call abort, a standard C library function that causes program execution to be terminated abnormally for analysis with a debugger. In a different application, you might want check to carry on after printing.

Next, add calls to check wherever they might be useful in your code:

check("before suspect");
/* ... suspect code ... */
check("after suspect");

After a bug is fixed, don't throw check away. Leave it in the source, commented out or controlled by a debugging option, so that it can be turned on again when the next difficult problem appears.

For harder problems, check might evolve to do verification and display of data structures. This approach can be generalized to routines that perform ongoing consistency checks of data structures and other information. In a program with intricate data structures, it's a good idea to write these checks before problems happen, as components of the program proper, so they can be turned on when trouble starts. Don't use them only when debugging; leave them installed during all stages of program development. If they're not expensive, it might be wise to leave them always enabled. Large programs like telephone switching systems often devote a significant amount of code to ``audit'' subsystems that monitor information and equipment, and report or even fix problems if they occur.

Write a log file.

Another tactic is to write a log file containing a fixed-format stream of debugging output. When a crash occurs, the log records what happened just before the crash. Web servers and other network programs maintain extensive logs of traffic so they can monitor themselves and their clients; this fragment (edited to fit) comes from a local system:
[Sun Dec 27 16:19:24 1998]
HTTPd: access to /usr/local/httpd/cgi-bin/test.html 
    failed for m1.cs.bell-labs.com, 
    reason: client denied by server (CGI non-executable)
    from http://m2.cs.bell-labs.com/cgi-bin/test.pl

Be sure to flush I/O buffers so the final log records appear in the log file. Output functions like printf normally buffer their output to print it efficiently; abnormal termination may discard this buffered output. In C, a call to fflush guarantees that all output is written before the program dies; there are analogous flush functions for output streams in C++ and Java. Or, if you can afford the overhead, you can avoid the flushing problem altogether by using unbuffered I/O for log files. The standard functions setbuf and setvbuf control buffering; setbuf(fp, NULL) turns off buffering on the stream fp. The standard error streams stderr, cerr, and System.err are normally unbuffered by default.

Draw a picture.

Sometimes pictures are more effective than text for testing and debugging. Pictures are especially helpful for understanding data structures, as we saw in Chapter 2, and of course when writing graphics software, but they can be used for all kinds of programs. Scatter plots display misplaced values more effectively than columns of numbers. A histogram of data reveals anomalies in exam grades, random numbers, bucket sizes in allocators and hash tables, and the like.

If you don't understand what's happening inside your program, try annotating the data structures with statistics and plotting the result. The following graphs plot, for the C Markov program in Chapter 3, hash chain lengths on the x axis and the number of elements in chains of that length on the y axis. The input data is our standard test, the Book of Psalms (42,685 words, 22,482 prefixes). The first two graphs are for the good hash multipliers of 31 and 37 and the third is for the awful multiplier of 128. In the first two cases, no chain is longer than 15 or 16 elements and most elements are in chains of length 5 or 6. In the third, the distribution is broader, the longest chain has 187 elements, and there are thousands of elements in chains longer than 20.

graph

Use tools.

Make good use of the facilities of the environment where you are debugging. For example, a file comparison program like diff compares the outputs from successful and failed debugging runs so you can focus on what has changed. If your debugging output is long, use grep to search it or an editor to examine it. Resist the temptation to send debugging output to a printer: computers scan voluminous output better than people do. Use shell scripts and other tools to automate the processing of the output from debugging runs.

Write trivial programs to test hypotheses or confirm your understanding of how something works. For instance, is it valid to free a NULL pointer?

int main(void)
{
	free(NULL);
	return 0;
}

Source code control programs like RCS keep track of versions of code so you can see what has changed and revert to previous versions to restore a known state. Besides indicating what has changed recently, they can also identify sections of code that have a long history of frequent modification; these are often a good place for bugs to lurk.

Keep records.

If the search for a bug goes on for any length of time, you will begin to lose track of what you tried and what you learned. If you record your tests and results, you are less likely to overlook something or to think that you have checked some possibility when you haven't. The act of writing will help you remember the problem the next time something similar comes up, and will also serve when you're explaining it to someone else.

Non-reproducible Bugs

Bugs that won't stand still are the most difficult to deal with, and usually the problem isn't as obvious as failing hardware. ...

Occasionally hardware itself goes bad. The floating-point flaw in the 1994 Pentium processor that caused certain computations to produce wrong answers was a highly publicized and costly bug in the design of the hardware, but once it had been identified, it was of course reproducible. One of the strangest bugs we ever saw involved a calculator program, long ago on a two-processor system. Sometimes the expression 1/2 would print 0.5 and sometimes it would print some consistent but utterly wrong value like 0.7432; there was no pattern as to whether one got the right answer or the wrong one. The problem was eventually traced to a failure of the floating-point unit in one of the processors. As the calculator program was randomly executed on one processor or the other, answers were either correct or nonsense.

Many years ago we used a machine whose internal temperature could be estimated from the number of low-order bits it got wrong in floating-point calculations. One of the circuit cards was loose; as the machine got warmer, the card tilted further out of its socket, and more data bits were disconnected from the backplane.

Last Resorts

What do you do if none of this advice helps?

Buy the book!

Copyright 1999 Lucent Technologies. All rights reserved.