I'm trying to debug a problem in my Java application that throws no errors, no exceptions and doesn't even crash the app (it seems the failure happens in a separate thread).
The problem seems to be inside a call to a library function (it's JAXBContext.newInstance(String) if that matters). The program will reach the line just before the call, but not the one just after it. My catch blocks are not entered and the program just continues to run.
The problem happens while trying to render an XML response to a web request that came in via Struts. The request has been handled and the code should marshal the response object. The client gets a response right away (so the code doesn't seem to hang in a loop), but it's just empty.
I have set a breakpoint just before the problematic line but the debugger just runs over it, I haven't a clue why.
I'm using eclipse and the application runs inside an OSGi container (Apache Felix) that was started with -Xdebug -Xrunjdwp:transport=dt_socket,address=8000,server=y,suspend=y. From within Eclipse I then use the Debug settings for "Remote Java application" to connect the debugger.
What are techniques to get at such a problem?
Probably an obvious question, but are you sure you are catching Throwable? An unchecked exception could easily cause the thread in question to die (assuming no one above you in the call stack is catching it either.)
Since you are suspending the VM on startup with your debug arguments, I assume you have confirmed that the debugger is attaching correctly. The fact that you say the debugger skips right past the call is very suspect. Are you able to hit any breakpoints in this application? What about in this Class? What about in this thread?
How did you narrow down the line in question without the debugger? println/debugging to a file?
Can you paste a code snippet of the method in question?
You could confirm the theory that the thread is dying by creating a second thread before the problem occurs and joining it to the thread you think is dying. Then the second thread's run() method would be invoked when the thread in question exits, and you'd know it died (but would still not know why.)
In answer to your general question, when I have a bug in a Java app that I can't reproduce in the debugger (which happens from time to time for various reasons), I incrementally modify my code with sysout printlns or output to files. If necessary, I may also modify the code my code is invoking. If you don't have the source code to the code you are invoking, you can try one of the many BCI frameworks to inject your byte code into the methods in question. It's a tedious process, but only happens occasionally.
You could try getting a Thread Dump - that will tell you if any methods are blocking (e.g. waiting for input). [Edit: re-reading your original question, getting a thread dump probably won't help as it looks like nothing is actually blocking. But I'm leaving it here as I find it useful in many other situations!]
If you think the error is happening in another thread you could also set an UncaughtExceptionHandler to try and catch it.
If you're sure the problem is somewhere within that method, you could try looking at the JAXB source code.
EDIT:
Well, if it gets really bad you can build your own private copy with debugging instrumentation. I hope you won't have to resort to that.
perhaps inside the call there is an infitite loop happening and this is why you get no further - but this might not cause a crash (unless memory is being used in each loop).
Related
This is intended to be a general-purpose question to assist new programmers who have a problem with a program, but who do not know how to use a debugger to diagnose the cause of the problem.
This question covers three classes of more specific question:
When I run my program, it does not produce the output I expect for the input I gave it.
When I run my program, it crashes and gives me a stack trace. I have examined the stack trace, but I still do not know the cause of the problem because the stack trace does not provide me with enough information.
When I run my program, it crashes because of a segmentation fault (SEGV).
A debugger is a program that can examine the state of your program while your program is running. The technical means it uses for doing this are not necessary for understanding the basics of using a debugger. You can use a debugger to halt the execution of your program when it reaches a particular place in your code, and then examine the values of the variables in the program. You can use a debugger to run your program very slowly, one line of code at a time (called single stepping), while you examine the values of its variables.
Using a debugger is an expected basic skill
A debugger is a very powerful tool for helping diagnose problems with programs. And debuggers are available for all practical programming languages. Therefore, being able to use a debugger is considered a basic skill of any professional or enthusiast programmer. And using a debugger yourself is considered basic work you should do yourself before asking others for help. As this site is for professional and enthusiast programmers, and not a help desk or mentoring site, if you have a question about a problem with a specific program, but have not used a debugger, your question is very likely to be closed and downvoted. If you persist with questions like that, you will eventually be blocked from posting more.
How a debugger can help you
By using a debugger you can discover whether a variable has the wrong value, and where in your program its value changed to the wrong value.
Using single stepping you can also discover whether the control flow is as you expect. For example, whether an if branch executed when you expect it ought to be.
General notes on using a debugger
The specifics of using a debugger depend on the debugger and, to a lesser degree, the programming language you are using.
You can attach a debugger to a process already running your program. You might do it if your program is stuck.
In practice it is often easier to run your program under the control of a debugger from the very start.
You indicate where your program should stop executing by indicating the source code file and line number of the line at which execution should stop, or by indicating the name of the method/function at which the program should stop (if you want to stop as soon as execution enters the method). The technical means that the debugger uses to cause your program to stop is called a breakpoint and this process is called setting a breakpoint.
Most modern debuggers are part of an IDE and provide you with a convenient GUI for examining the source code and variables of your program, with a point-and-click interface for setting breakpoints, running your program, and single stepping it.
Using a debugger can be very difficult unless your program executable or bytecode files include debugging symbol information and cross-references to your source code. You might have to compile (or recompile) your program slightly differently to ensure that information is present. If the compiler performs extensive optimizations, those cross-references can become confusing. You might therefore have to recompile your program with optimizations turned off.
I want to add that a debugger isn't always the perfect solution, and shouldn't always be the go-to solution to debugging. Here are a few cases where a debugger might not work for you:
The part of your program which fails is really large (poor modularization, perhaps?) and you're not exactly sure where to start stepping through the code. Stepping through all of it might be too time-consuming.
Your program uses a lot of callbacks and other non-linear flow control methods, which makes the debugger confused when you step through it.
Your program is multi-threaded. Or even worse, your problem is caused by a race condition.
The code that has the bug in it runs many times before it bugs out. This can be particularly problematic in main loops, or worse yet, in physics engines, where the problem could be numerical. Even setting a breakpoint, in this case, would simply have you hitting it many times, with the bug not appearing.
Your program must run in real-time. This is a big issue for programs that connect to the network. If you set up a breakpoint in your network code, the other end isn't going to wait for you to step through, it's simply going to time out. Programs that rely on the system clock, e.g. games with frameskip, aren't much better off either.
Your program performs some form of destructive actions, like writing to files or sending e-mails, and you'd like to limit the number of times you need to run through it.
You can tell that your bug is caused by incorrect values arriving at function X, but you don't know where these values come from. Having to run through the program, again and again, setting breakpoints farther and farther back, can be a huge hassle. Especially if function X is called from many places throughout the program.
In all of these cases, either having your program stop abruptly could cause the end results to differ, or stepping through manually in search of the one line where the bug is caused is too much of a hassle. This can equally happen whether your bug is incorrect behavior, or a crash. For instance, if memory corruption causes a crash, by the time the crash happens, it's too far from where the memory corruption first occurred, and no useful information is left.
So, what are the alternatives?
Simplest is simply logging and assertions. Add logs to your program at various points, and compare what you get with what you're expecting. For instance, see if the function where you think there's a bug is even called in the first place. See if the variables at the start of a method are what you think they are. Unlike breakpoints, it's okay for there to be many log lines in which nothing special happens. You can simply search through the log afterward. Once you hit a log line that's different from what you're expecting, add more in the same area. Narrow it down farther and farther, until it's small enough to be able to log every line in the bugged area.
Assertions can be used to trap incorrect values as they occur, rather than once they have an effect visible to the end-user. The quicker you catch an incorrect value, the closer you are to the line that produced it.
Refactor and unit test. If your program is too big, it might be worthwhile to test it one class or one function at a time. Give it inputs, and look at the outputs, and see which are not as you're expecting. Being able to narrow down a bug from an entire program to a single function can make a huge difference in debugging time.
In case of memory leaks or memory stomping, use appropriate tools that are able to analyze and detect these at runtime. Being able to detect where the actual corruption occurs is the first step. After this, you can use logs to work your way back to where incorrect values were introduced.
Remember that debugging is a process going backward. You have the end result - a bug - and find the cause, which preceded it. It's about working your way backward and, unfortunately, debuggers only step forwards. This is where good logging and postmortem analysis can give you much better results.
I am trying to debug a program in Java using SpringSource ToolSuite. Every time it gets stuck at AWTAutoShutdown.class. I have tried hitting F8 to step out of whatever is happening but it seems like there is a thread locking up somewhere. I understand this is kind of a vague question but has anyone seen this before? Where can I start looking to solve this problem?
So one thread is suspended with a ThreadDeath exception. Perhaps STS is suspending because there is an uncaught exception, instead of on a breakpoint. There is a setting so that you can turn off suspension on uncaught exceptions, which I only want about half the time anyway. Turn that off and see if your thread dies and gives you something more useful in terms of operation (or an error).
I've run into the issue where I have a program (not written by me, by someone else) I want to run 24/7, but sometimes it crashes. Normally, this wouldn't be an issue because I can simply create a process watcher that checks if it crashed, and then restarts it if necessary.
But, this particular program sometimes throws an exception and outputs it into the graphical interface that's integrated into it. In this instance, the program doesn't crash at all. The interface stays up, but the actual server functionality is unavailable.
Is there any way I can intercept this information from this process?
You want to use the Java Virtual Machine Tools Interface. I can't give you the code to catch your exception, but this is where to look. You'll have to do some detective work to find the class that throws the exception, or at least to find some indicator that it has been thrown.
Edit: You can also try calling the vendor to see if they know of a way. You can also look to see if it is writing the exception to a log file, which you could then watch.
This may or may not work, but if when the application displays it's error and the server stops working does the memory usage drop? If so you could probably just add some logic to your process monitor to call the windows command tasklist to see if the memory usage drops below some threshold. You'll have to check how much memory the program normally uses and how much it uses after the error though.
Since you said the server functionality stops working, another option could be to write a simple program that basically just pings the server how ever often you want to make sure it is still up. If not, kill the process and restart it.
I assume you have no access to the source code, so if it is outputting to the GUI the answer is no. Even if you could attach to the running process you would need to intercept the exception, but it is caught and sent to the GUI, not thrown from the application.
In theory, you could screen scrape the application. I don't know of any specific tools for doing this, but they may be out there.
Edit: I may have been wrong above, check out a post here where they get the stack from a running thread. You probably won't be able to capture the exception this way, but if you're lucky the stack trace will look very different when the program is operating normally compared to when an exception has been thrown.
Edit 2: I submitted a second, more accurate answer. See below.
Is the other program Java? Look at AspectJ, you may be able to hack something using it if you have control on the program startup.
Without ability to rebuild the app you are generally out of luck unless you do some extensive hacking. Here is one option I can think of.
Most likely the application replaces System.out and/or System.err with its own stream implementation. If that's the case you can try to locate the class for this stream and replace it with your own wrapper with the same name. You may rename original class using jarjar. In the wapper you can provide console output to detect the exception.
I am running a Java Program in command prompt
The normal course is after successfully executing the program it comes back to prompt .. what are the possible reasons it will not come back to prompt after successfully executing the program
why is it not coming back to prompt after execution
usually it comes back but sometimes it doesn't...
This sounds like a race condition. Something in your application's shutdown sequence is non-deterministic, and it works or does not work depending on various platform specific (and possibly external) factors. There is probably no point figuring out what those factors are (or might be), since it won't help you fix the problem.
Only difference is in RAM hard disk capacity mine is slower.. Can it be possible reason?
These could be factors, but they are not the cause of the problem. So focus on figuring out what makes your application non-deterministic.
As others have said, without more information (and relevant code) we can only guess.
When the application has failed to shut down, get it to give you a thread dump. Or try shutting it down while it is attached to a debugger. These may allow you to get some clues as to what is going wrong.
Finally, the brute force solution is simply to have the main method (or whatever) call System.exit(0) on its way out. But beware of the possibility of files not being flushed, etc if you do that.
Because it's not finishing. If it's sometimes happening and sometimes not, my instinct is that you have some sort of race condition. Probably one of your cleanup steps is hanging if another action has or hasn't been taken.
Without source code this will be hard to debug.
There could be an active thread still running which is not in "daemon" mode. For example, if you have a Swing GUI and all of the frames are closed the Event Dispatch thread is still active so the JVM will not exit.
I need to use deprecated stop () because I need to run Runnable classes which were developed by other programmers and I can't use while (isRunning == true) inside method run.
The question is: Is it safety enough to use method stop ()? Theads don't work with any resources (like files, DB, or Internet connections). But I want to be sure that JVM wouln't be corrupted after I stop a dozen of threads with stop () method.
P.S.: yes, I can write some code to test it, but I hope somebody knows the answer)
Sort of. There's nothing inherently "corrupting" about Thread.stop(). The problem is that it can leave objects in a damaged state, when the thread executing them suddenly stops. If the rest of your program has no visibility to those objects, then it's alright. On the other hand, if some of those objects are visible to the rest of the program, you might run into problems that are hard to diagnose.
If you use Thread.stop you'll probably get away with, assuming you have few users. It is exceptionally hard to test for. It can cause an exception anywhere in executing code. You can't test all possible situations. On your machine in your set up you might never find a problem; come the next JRE update your program might start failing with a highly obscure intermittent bug.
An example problem case is if the thread is loading a class at the time. The class fails to load and will not be retried again. You program is broken.
The JVM won't be corrupt, but read the javadocs closely to make sure that you don't meet their conditions for "disaster."
You'll need to take a close look at any synchronization monitors that the thread is holding onto. You mentioned files and sockets as resources being hung onto, but you'll also need to consider any shared data structures. Also make sure your exception handling doesn't catch RuntimeExceptions (see stop()).