<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html
          PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
          "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
   <meta name="AUTHOR" content="gregod@cs.rpi.edu (Doug Gregor)" />
   <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="C++, GCC, libstdc++, g++, debug" />
   <meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Design of the libstdc++ debug mode." />
   <meta name="GENERATOR" content="vi and eight fingers" />
   <title>Design of the libstdc++ debug mode</title>
<link rel="StyleSheet" href="lib3styles.css" />
</head>
<body>

<h1 class="centered"><a name="top">Design of the libstdc++ debug mode</a></h1>

<p class="fineprint"><em>
   The latest version of this document is always available at
   <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/debug_mode.html">
   http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/debug_mode.html</a>.
</em></p>

<p><em>
   To the <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/libstdc++/">libstdc++-v3 homepage</a>.
</em></p>


<!-- ####################################################### -->

<hr />
<h1>Debug mode design</h1>
<p> The libstdc++ debug mode replaces unsafe (but efficient) standard
  containers and iterators with semantically equivalent safe standard
  containers and iterators to aid in debugging user programs. The
  following goals directed the design of the libstdc++ debug mode:</p>

  <ul>

    <li><b>Correctness</b>: the libstdc++ debug mode must not change
    the semantics of the standard library for all cases specified in
    the ANSI/ISO C++ standard. The essence of this constraint is that
    any valid C++ program should behave in the same manner regardless
    of whether it is compiled with debug mode or release mode. In
    particular, entities that are defined in namespace std in release
    mode should remain defined in namespace std in debug mode, so that
    legal specializations of namespace std entities will remain
    valid. A program that is not valid C++ (e.g., invokes undefined
    behavior) is not required to behave similarly, although the debug
    mode will abort with a diagnostic when it detects undefined
    behavior.</li>

    <li><b>Performance</b>: the additional of the libstdc++ debug mode
    must not affect the performance of the library when it is compiled
    in release mode. Performance of the libstdc++ debug mode is
    secondary (and, in fact, will be worse than the release
    mode).</li>

    <li><b>Usability</b>: the libstdc++ debug mode should be easy to
    use. It should be easily incorporated into the user's development
    environment (e.g., by requiring only a single new compiler switch)
    and should produce reasonable diagnostics when it detects a
    problem with the user program. Usability also involves detection
    of errors when using the debug mode incorrectly, e.g., by linking
    a release-compiled object against a debug-compiled object if in
    fact the resulting program will not run correctly.</li>

    <li><b>Minimize recompilation</b>: While it is expected that
    users recompile at least part of their program to use debug
    mode, the amount of recompilation affects the
    detect-compile-debug turnaround time. This indirectly affects the
    usefulness of the debug mode, because debugging some applications
    may require rebuilding a large amount of code, which may not be
    feasible when the suspect code may be very localized. There are
    several levels of conformance to this requirement, each with its
    own usability and implementation characteristics. In general, the
    higher-numbered conformance levels are more usable (i.e., require
    less recompilation) but are more complicated to implement than
    the lower-numbered conformance levels. 
      <ol>
	<li><b>Full recompilation</b>: The user must recompile his or
	her entire application and all C++ libraries it depends on,
	including the C++ standard library that ships with the
	compiler. This must be done even if only a small part of the
	program can use debugging features.</li>

	<li><b>Full user recompilation</b>: The user must recompile
	his or her entire application and all C++ libraries it depends
	on, but not the C++ standard library itself. This must be done
	even if only a small part of the program can use debugging
	features. This can be achieved given a full recompilation
	system by compiling two versions of the standard library when
	the compiler is installed and linking against the appropriate
	one, e.g., a multilibs approach.</li>

	<li><b>Partial recompilation</b>: The user must recompile the
	parts of his or her application and the C++ libraries it
	depends on that will use the debugging facilities
	directly. This means that any code that uses the debuggable
	standard containers would need to be recompiled, but code
	that does not use them (but may, for instance, use IOStreams)
	would not have to be recompiled.</li>

	<li><b>Per-use recompilation</b>: The user must recompile the
	parts of his or her application and the C++ libraries it
	depends on where debugging should occur, and any other code
	that interacts with those containers. This means that a set of
	translation units that accesses a particular standard
	container instance may either be compiled in release mode (no
	checking) or debug mode (full checking), but must all be
	compiled in the same way; a translation unit that does not see
	that standard container instance need not be recompiled. This
	also means that a translation unit <em>A</em> that contains a
	particular instantiation
	(say, <code>std::vector&lt;int&gt;</code>) compiled in release
	mode can be linked against a translation unit <em>B</em> that
	contains the same instantiation compiled in debug mode (a
	feature not present with partial recompilation). While this
	behavior is technically a violation of the One Definition
	Rule, this ability tends to be very important in
	practice. The libstdc++ debug mode supports this level of
	recompilation. </li>

	<li><b>Per-unit recompilation</b>: The user must only
	recompile the translation units where checking should occur,
	regardless of where debuggable standard containers are
	used. This has also been dubbed "<code>-g</code> mode",
	because the <code>-g</code> compiler switch works in this way,
	emitting debugging information at a per--translation-unit
	granularity. We believe that this level of recompilation is in
	fact not possible if we intend to supply safe iterators, leave
	the program semantics unchanged, and not regress in
	performance under release mode because we cannot associate
	extra information with an iterator (to form a safe iterator)
	without either reserving that space in release mode
	(performance regression) or allocating extra memory associated
	with each iterator with <code>new</code> (changes the program
	semantics).</li>
      </ol>
    </li>
  </ul>

<h2><a name="other">Other implementations</a></h2>
<p> There are several existing implementations of debug modes for C++
  standard library implementations, although none of them directly
  supports debugging for programs using libstdc++. The existing
  implementations include:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a
  href="http://www.mathcs.sjsu.edu/faculty/horstman/safestl.html">SafeSTL</a>:
  SafeSTL was the original debugging version of the Standard Template
  Library (STL), implemented by Cay S. Horstmann on top of the
  Hewlett-Packard STL. Though it inspired much work in this area, it
  has not been kept up-to-date for use with modern compilers or C++
  standard library implementations.</li>

  <li><a href="http://www.stlport.org/">STLport</a>: STLport is a free
  implementation of the C++ standard library derived from the <a
  href="http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/">SGI implementation</a>, and
  ported to many other platforms. It includes a debug mode that uses a
  wrapper model (that in some way inspired the libstdc++ debug mode
  design), although at the time of this writing the debug mode is
  somewhat incomplete and meets only the "Full user recompilation" (2)
  recompilation guarantee by requiring the user to link against a
  different library in debug mode vs. release mode.</li>

  <li><a href="http://www.metrowerks.com/mw/default.htm">Metrowerks
  CodeWarrior</a>: The C++ standard library that ships with Metrowerks
  CodeWarrior includes a debug mode. It is a full debug-mode
  implementation (including debugging for CodeWarrior extensions) and
  is easy to use, although it meets only the "Full recompilation" (1)
  recompilation guarantee.</li>
</ul>

<h2><a name="design">Debug mode design methodology</a></h2>
<p>This section provides an overall view of the design of the
  libstdc++ debug mode and details the relationship between design
  decisions and the stated design goals.</p>

<h3><a name="wrappers">The wrapper model</a></h3>
<p>The libstdc++ debug mode uses a wrapper model where the debugging
  versions of library components (e.g., iterators and containers) form
  a layer on top of the release versions of the library
  components. The debugging components first verify that the operation
  is correct (aborting with a diagnostic if an error is found) and
  will then forward to the underlying release-mode container that will
  perform the actual work. This design decision ensures that we cannot
  regress release-mode performance (because the release-mode
  containers are left untouched) and partially enables <a
  href="#mixing">mixing debug and release code</a> at link time,
  although that will not be discussed at this time.</p>

<p>Two types of wrappers are used in the implementation of the debug
  mode: container wrappers and iterator wrappers. The two types of
  wrappers interact to maintain relationships between iterators and
  their associated containers, which are necessary to detect certain
  types of standard library usage errors such as dereferencing
  past-the-end iterators or inserting into a container using an
  iterator from a different container.</p>

<h4><a name="safe_iterator">Safe iterators</a></h4>
<p>Iterator wrappers provide a debugging layer over any iterator that
  is attached to a particular container, and will manage the
  information detailing the iterator's state (singular,
  dereferenceable, etc.) and tracking the container to which the
  iterator is attached. Because iterators have a well-defined, common
  interface the iterator wrapper is implemented with the iterator
  adaptor class template <code>__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator</code>,
  which takes two template parameters:</p>

<ul>
  <li><code>Iterator</code>: The underlying iterator type, which must
    be either the <code>iterator</code> or <code>const_iterator</code>
    typedef from the sequence type this iterator can reference.</li>
  
  <li><code>Sequence</code>: The type of sequence that this iterator
  references. This sequence must be a safe sequence (discussed below)
  whose <code>iterator</code> or <code>const_iterator</code> typedef
  is the type of the safe iterator.</li>
</ul>

<h4><a name="safe_sequence">Safe sequences (containers)</a></h4>
<p>Container wrappers provide a debugging layer over a particular
  container type. Because containers vary greatly in the member
  functions they support and the semantics of those member functions
  (especially in the area of iterator invalidation), container
  wrappers are tailored to the container they reference, e.g., the
  debugging version of <code>std::list</code> duplicates the entire
  interface of <code>std::list</code>, adding additional semantic
  checks and then forwarding operations to the
  real <code>std::list</code> (a public base class of the debugging
  version) as appropriate. However, all safe containers inherit from
  the class template <code>__gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence</code>,
  instantiated with the type of the safe container itself (an instance
  of the curiously recurring template pattern).</p>

<p>The iterators of a container wrapper will be 
  <a href="#safe_iterator">safe iterators</a> that reference sequences
  of this type and wrap the iterators provided by the release-mode
  base class. The debugging container will use only the safe
  iterators within its own interface (therefore requiring the user to
  use safe iterators, although this does not change correct user
  code) and will communicate with the release-mode base class with
  only the underlying, unsafe, release-mode iterators that the base
  class exports.</p>

<p> The debugging version of <code>std::list</code> will have the
  following basic structure:</p>

<pre>
template&lt;typename _Tp, typename _Allocator = allocator&lt;_Tp&gt;
  class debug-list :
    public release-list&lt;_Tp, _Allocator&gt;,
    public __gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence&lt;debug-list&lt;_Tp, _Allocator&gt; &gt;
  {
    typedef release-list&lt;_Tp, _Allocator&gt; _Base;
    typedef debug-list&lt;_Tp, _Allocator&gt;   _Self;

  public:
    typedef __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator&lt;typename _Base::iterator, _Self&gt;       iterator;
    typedef __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator&lt;typename _Base::const_iterator, _Self&gt; const_iterator;

    // duplicate std::list interface with debugging semantics
  };
</pre>

<h3><a name="precondition">Precondition checking</a></h3>
<p>The debug mode operates primarily by checking the preconditions of
  all standard library operations that it supports. Preconditions that
  are always checked (regardless of whether or not we are in debug
  mode) are checked via the <code>__check_xxx</code> macros defined
  and documented in the source
  file <code>include/debug/debug.h</code>. Preconditions that may or
  may not be checked, depending on the debug-mode
  macro <code>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG</code>, are checked via
  the <code>__requires_xxx</code> macros defined and documented in the
  same source file. Preconditions are validated using any additional
  information available at run-time, e.g., the containers that are
  associated with a particular iterator, the position of the iterator
  within those containers, the distance between two iterators that may
  form a valid range, etc. In the absence of suitable information,
  e.g., an input iterator that is not a safe iterator, these
  precondition checks will silently succeed.</p>

<p>The majority of precondition checks use the aforementioned macros,
  which have the secondary benefit of having prewritten debug
  messages that use information about the current status of the
  objects involved (e.g., whether an iterator is singular or what
  sequence it is attached to) along with some static information
  (e.g., the names of the function parameters corresponding to the
  objects involved). When not using these macros, the debug mode uses
  either the debug-mode assertion
  macro <code>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_ASSERT</code> , its pedantic
  cousin <code>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_PEDASSERT</code>, or the assertion
  check macro that supports more advance formulation of error
  messages, <code>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG_VERIFY</code>. These macros are
  documented more thoroughly in the debug mode source code.</p>

<h3><a name="coexistence">Release- and debug-mode coexistence</a></h3>
<p>The libstdc++ debug mode is the first debug mode we know of that
  is able to provide the "Per-use recompilation" (4) guarantee, that
  allows release-compiled and debug-compiled code to be linked and
  executed together without causing unpredictable behavior. This
  guarantee minimizes the recompilation that users are required to
  perform, shortening the detect-compile-debug bughunting cycle
  and making the debug mode easier to incorporate into development
  environments by minimizing dependencies.</p>

<p>Achieving link- and run-time coexistence is not a trivial
  implementation task. To achieve this goal we required a small
  extension to the GNU C++ compiler (described in the GCC Manual for
  C++ Extensions, see <a
  href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Strong-Using.html">strong
  using</a>), and a complex organization of debug- and
  release-modes. The end result is that we have achieved per-use
  recompilation but have had to give up some checking of the
  <code>std::basic_string</code> class template (namely, safe
  iterators).
</p>

<h4><a name="compile_coexistence">Compile-time coexistence of release- and
    debug-mode components</a></h4>
<p>Both the release-mode components and the debug-mode
  components need to exist within a single translation unit so that
  the debug versions can wrap the release versions. However, only one
  of these components should be user-visible at any particular
  time with the standard name, e.g., <code>std::list</code>. </p>

<p>In release mode, we define only the release-mode version of the
  component with its standard name and do not include the debugging
  component at all. The release mode version is defined within the
  namespace <code>__gnu_norm</code>, and then associated with namespace
  <code>std</code> via a "strong using" directive. Minus the
  namespace associations, this method leaves the behavior of release
  mode completely unchanged from its behavior prior to the
  introduction of the libstdc++ debug mode. Here's an example of what
  this ends up looking like, in C++.</p>

<pre>
namespace __gnu_norm
{
  using namespace std; 
  
  template&lt;typename _Tp, typename _Alloc = allocator&lt;_Tp&gt; &gt;
    class list
    {
      // ...
    };
} // namespace __gnu_norm

namespace std
{
  using namespace __gnu_norm __attribute__ ((strong));
}
</pre>
  
<p>In debug mode we include the release-mode container and also the
debug-mode container. The release mode version is defined exactly as
before, and the debug-mode container is defined within the namespace
<code>__gnu_debug</code>, which is associated with namespace
<code>std</code> via a "strong using" directive.  This method allows
the debug- and release-mode versions of the same component to coexist
at compile-time without causing an unreasonable maintenance burden,
while minimizing confusion. Again, this boils down to C++ code as
follows:</p>

<pre>
namespace __gnu_norm
{
  using namespace std; 
  
  template&lt;typename _Tp, typename _Alloc = allocator&lt;_Tp&gt; &gt;
    class list
    {
      // ...
    };
} // namespace __gnu_norm

namespace __gnu_debug
{
  using namespace std; 
  
  template&lt;typename _Tp, typename _Alloc = allocator&lt;_Tp&gt; &gt;
    class list
    : public __gnu_norm::list&lt;_Tp, _Alloc&gt;,
      public __gnu_debug::_Safe_sequence&lt;list&lt;_Tp, _Alloc&gt; &gt;
    {
      // ...
    };
} // namespace __gnu_norm

namespace std
{
  using namespace __gnu_debug __attribute__ ((strong));
}
</pre>

<h4><a name="mixing">Link- and run-time coexistence of release- and
    debug-mode components</a></h4>

<p>Because each component has a distinct and separate release and
debug implementation, there are are no issues with link-time
coexistence: the separate namespaces result in different mangled
names, and thus unique linkage.</p>

<p>However, components that are defined and used within the C++
standard library itself face additional constraints. For instance,
some of the member functions of <code> std::moneypunct</code> return
<code>std::basic_string</code>. Normally, this is not a problem, but
with a mixed mode standard library that could be using either
debug-mode or release-mode <code> basic_string</code> objects, things
get more complicated.  As the return value of a function is not
encoded into the mangled name, there is no way to specify a
release-mode or a debug-mode string. In practice, this results in
runtime errors. A simplified example of this problem is as follows.
</p>

<p> Take this translation unit, compiled in debug-mode: </p>
<pre>
// -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG
#include &lt;string&gt;

std::string test02();
 
std::string test01()
{
  return test02();
}
 
int main()
{
  test01();
  return 0;
}
</pre>

<p> ... and linked to this translation unit, compiled in release mode:</p>

<pre>
#include &lt;string&gt;
 
std::string
test02()
{
  return std::string("toast");
}
</pre>

<p> For this reason we cannot easily provide safe iterators for
  the <code>std::basic_string</code> class template, as it is present
  throughout the C++ standard library. For instance, locale facets
  define typedefs that include <code>basic_string</code>: in a mixed
  debug/release program, should that typedef be based on the
  debug-mode <code>basic_string</code> or the
  release-mode <code>basic_string</code>? While the answer could be
  "both", and the difference hidden via renaming a la the
  debug/release containers, we must note two things about locale
  facets:</p>

<ol>
  <li>They exist as shared state: one can create a facet in one
  translation unit and access the facet via the same type name in a
  different translation unit. This means that we cannot have two
  different versions of locale facets, because the types would not be
  the same across debug/release-mode translation unit barriers.</li>

  <li>They have virtual functions returning strings: these functions
  mangle in the same way regardless of the mangling of their return
  types (see above), and their precise signatures can be relied upon
  by users because they may be overridden in derived classes.</li>
</ol>

<p>With the design of libstdc++ debug mode, we cannot effectively hide
  the differences between debug and release-mode strings from the
  user. Failure to hide the differences may result in unpredictable
  behavior, and for this reason we have opted to only
  perform <code>basic_string</code> changes that do not require ABI
  changes. The effect on users is expected to be minimal, as there are
  simple alternatives (e.g., <code>__gnu_debug::basic_string</code>),
  and the usability benefit we gain from the ability to mix debug- and
  release-compiled translation units is enormous.</p>

<h4><a name="coexistence_alt">Alternatives for Coexistence</a></h4>
<p>The coexistence scheme above was chosen over many alternatives,
  including language-only solutions and solutions that also required
  extensions to the C++ front end. The following is a partial list of
  solutions, with justifications for our rejection of each.</p>

<ul>
  <li><em>Completely separate debug/release libraries</em>: This is by
  far the simplest implementation option, where we do not allow any
  coexistence of debug- and release-compiled translation units in a
  program. This solution has an extreme negative affect on usability,
  because it is quite likely that some libraries an application
  depends on cannot be recompiled easily. This would not meet
  our <b>usability</b> or <b>minimize recompilation</b> criteria
  well.</li>

  <li><em>Add a <code>Debug</code> boolean template parameter</em>:
  Partial specialization could be used to select the debug
  implementation when <code>Debug == true</code>, and the state
  of <code>_GLIBCXX_DEBUG</code> could decide whether the
  default <code>Debug</code> argument is <code>true</code>
  or <code>false</code>. This option would break conformance with the
  C++ standard in both debug <em>and</em> release modes. This would
  not meet our <b>correctness</b> criteria. </li>

  <li><em>Packaging a debug flag in the allocators</em>: We could
    reuse the <code>Allocator</code> template parameter of containers
    by adding a sentinel wrapper <code>debug&lt;&gt;</code> that
    signals the user's intention to use debugging, and pick up
    the <code>debug&lt;&gt;</code> allocator wrapper in a partial
    specialization. However, this has two drawbacks: first, there is a
    conformance issue because the default allocator would not be the
    standard-specified <code>std::allocator&lt;T&gt;</code>. Secondly
    (and more importantly), users that specify allocators instead of
    implicitly using the default allocator would not get debugging
    containers. Thus this solution fails the <b>correctness</b>
    criteria.</li>

  <li><em>Define debug containers in another namespace, and employ
      a <code>using</code> declaration (or directive)</em>: This is an
      enticing option, because it would eliminate the need for
      the <code>link_name</code> extension by aliasing the
      templates. However, there is no true template aliasing mechanism
      is C++, because both <code>using</code> directives and using
      declarations disallow specialization. This method fails
      the <b>correctness</b> criteria.</li>

  <li><em> Use implementation-specific properties of anonymous
    namespaces. </em>
    See <a
    href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-08/msg00004.html"> this post
    </a>
    This method fails the <b>correctness</b> criteria.</li>

  <li><em>Extension: allow reopening on namespaces</em>: This would
    allow the debug mode to effectively alias the
    namespace <code>std</code> to an internal namespace, such
    as <code>__gnu_std_debug</code>, so that it is completely
    separate from the release-mode <code>std</code> namespace. While
    this will solve some renaming problems and ensure that
    debug- and release-compiled code cannot be mixed unsafely, it ensures that
    debug- and release-compiled code cannot be mixed at all. For
    instance, the program would have two <code>std::cout</code>
    objects! This solution would fails the <b>minimize
    recompilation</b> requirement, because we would only be able to
    support option (1) or (2).</li>

  <li><em>Extension: use link name</em>: This option involves
    complicated re-naming between debug-mode and release-mode
    components at compile time, and then a g++ extension called <em>
    link name </em> to recover the original names at link time. There
    are two drawbacks to this approach. One, it's very verbose,
    relying on macro renaming at compile time and several levels of
    include ordering. Two, ODR issues remained with container member
    functions taking no arguments in mixed-mode settings resulting in
    equivalent link names, <code> vector::push_back() </code> being
    one example. 
    See <a
    href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2003-08/msg00177.html">link
    name</a> </li>
</ul>

<p>Other options may exist for implementing the debug mode, many of
  which have probably been considered and others that may still be
  lurking. This list may be expanded over time to include other
  options that we could have implemented, but in all cases the full
  ramifications of the approach (as measured against the design goals
  for a libstdc++ debug mode) should be considered first. The DejaGNU
  testsuite includes some testcases that check for known problems with
  some solutions (e.g., the <code>using</code> declaration solution
  that breaks user specialization), and additional testcases will be
  added as we are able to identify other typical problem cases. These
  test cases will serve as a benchmark by which we can compare debug
  mode implementations.</p>

<!-- ####################################################### -->

<hr />
<p class="fineprint"><em>
See <a href="17_intro/license.html">license.html</a> for copying conditions.
Comments and suggestions are welcome, and may be sent to
<a href="mailto:libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org">the libstdc++ mailing list</a>.
</em></p>


</body>
</html>