Slashdot Mirror
Whose Bug Is This Anyway?
An anonymous reader writes "Patrick Wyatt, one of the developers behind the original Warcraft and StarCraft games, as well as Diablo and Guild Wars, has a post about some of the bug hunting he's done throughout his career. He covers familiar topics — crunch time leading to stupid mistakes and finding bugs in compilers rather than game code — and shares a story about finding a way to diagnose hardware failure for players of Guild Wars. Quoting: '[Mike O'Brien] wrote a module ("OsStress") which would allocate a block of memory, perform calculations in that memory block, and then compare the results of the calculation to a table of known answers. He encoded this stress-test into the main game loop so that the computer would perform this verification step about 30-50 times per second. On a properly functioning computer this stress test should never fail, but surprisingly we discovered that on about 1% of the computers being used to play Guild Wars it did fail! One percent might not sound like a big deal, but when one million gamers play the game on any given day that means 10,000 would have at least one crash bug. Our programming team could spend weeks researching the bugs for just one day at that rate!'"
...is pretty much what those of us that build our own systems do anytime we upgrade components (RAM/CPU/MB) or experience unexplained errors. It's similar to running the Prime95 torture tests overnight, which also checks calculations in memory against known data sets for expected values.
Good stuff for those that don't already have a knack for QA.
You mean all those times when my code was 'fine' and i gave up it really could have been the compiler or a memory problem
shit i'm a much better programmer than i realized
Microsoft found similar impossible bugs when overclocking was involved.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Bug hunts on LV-426 often end badly.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
In my field, I have a bunch of grass, a few shrubs and even a small tree. Lots of rodents and birds. If a computer can survive two weeks sitting in my field and still power on, you have a damned good system. If not, you're left with people wondering why you left your computer in my field for two weeks.
You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and that's why you don't understand what he's talking about.
He didn't say anything about a computer: "In my field, if YOU can survive"... scary...
If you suspect the compiler is generating invalid machine code, try to make a minimal test case for it. If you succeed, file a bug report and add that test case; the compiler developers will appreciate it. If you don't succeed in finding a minimal test case that triggers the same issue, it's likely not a compiler bug but an issue in your program in some place where you weren't expecting it.
I actually believe it. I am sure they might have think of floating point precision problem. But most likely they only used integers. That's what prime 95 and memtest are doing. Integer and memory operations uncover most common hardware failure. I encountered many computers with faulty hardware when stressed. And I am sure guildwars was stressful.
For being a skilled developer, I can't believe he would not think that Dev/Test/Prod build environments not running the same version of the compiler was not an issue (Obviously, until it was an issue).
That's Development Cycle 101.
Linux O Muerte!
I think this is bull. I just don't believe 1% of computers give wrong answers
1% of all computers? Probably not.
1% of gamers' computers, in an era when PC gaming technology was progressing very quickly, and so gamers were often running overclocked (or otherwise poorly set up) hardware? Sounds plausible enough.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
He said 1% of computers that were used to play Guild Wars gave wrong answers. Gaming PCs are more likely to be overclocked too far, have under-dimensioned power supplies or overheating issues than the average PC. 1% doesn't sound unrealistically high to me.
I've had compilers miscompile my code, assemblers mis-assemble it, and even on a few cases CPUs mis-execute it consistently (look up CPU6 and msp430). Random crashes due to bad memory/cpu... yep. But on very rare occasions, I find that the bug is indeed in my own code, so I check there first.
We deal with this type of bug all the time in safety-certified systems (medical apps, aircraft, &c).
Most of the time an embedded program doesn't use up 100% of the CPU time. What can you do in the idle moments?
Each module supplies a function "xxxBIT" (where "BIT" stands for "Built In Test") which checks the module variables for consistency.
The serial driver (SerialBIT) checks that the buffer pointers still point within the buffer, checks that the serial port registers haven't changed, and so on.
The memory manager knows the last-used static address for the program (ie - the end of .data), and fills all unused memory with a pattern. In it's spare time (MemoryBIT) it checks to make sure the unused memory still has the pattern. This finds all sorts of "thrown pointer" errors. (Checking all of memory takes a long time, so MemoryBIT only checked 1K each call.)
The stack pointer was checked - we put a pattern at the end of the stack, and if it ever changed we knew something want recursive or used too much stack.
The EEPROM was checksummed periodically.
Every module had a BIT function and we check every imaginable error in the processor's spare time - over and over continuously.
Also, every function began with a set of ASSERTs that check the arguments for validity. These were active in the released code. The extra time spent was only significant in a handful of functions, so we removed the ASSERTs only in those cases. Overall the extra time spent was negligible.
The overall effect was a very "stiff" program - one that would either work completely or wouldn't work at all. In particular, it wouldn't give erroneous or misleading results: showing a blank screen is better than showing bad information, or even showing a frozen screen.
(Situation specific: Blank screen is OK for aircraft, but not medical. You can still detect errors, log the problem, and alert the user.)
Everyone says to only use error checking during development, and remove it on released code. I don't see it that way - done right, error checking has negligible impact, and coupled with good error logging it can turbocharge your bug-fixing.
If you suspect the compiler is generating invalid machine code, try to make a minimal test case for it. If you succeed, file a bug report and add that test case; the compiler developers will appreciate it. If you don't succeed in finding a minimal test case that triggers the same issue, it's likely not a compiler bug but an issue in your program in some place where you weren't expecting it.
Yeah, right. Let's see how that works out in practice.
I go to the home page of the project with bug in hand (including sample code). Where do I log the problem?
I have to register with your site. One more external agent gets my E-mail, or I have to take pains to manage multiple E-mails to avoid spam. (I don't want to be part of your community! I just thought you wanted to make your product better.)
Once registered, I'm subscribed to your newsletter. (My temp E-mail has been getting status updates from the GCC crowd for years. My mail reader does something funky with the subject line, so responding with "unsubscribe" doesn't work for me.)
Once entered, my E-mail and/or name is publicly available on the bug report for the next millenium. In plain text in the bug report, and sometimes in the publicly-accessible changelog - naked for the world to see (CPAN is especially fragrant).
Some times the authors think it's the user's problem (no, really? This program causes gcc to core dump. How can that be *my* fault?) Some times the authors interpret the spec different from everyone else (Opera - I'm looking at you). Some times you're just ignored, some times they say "We're rewriting the core system, see if it's still there at the next release", and some times they say "it's fixed in the next release, should be available in 6 months".
What you really do is figure out the sequence of events that causes the problem, change the code to do the same thing in a different way (which *doesn't* trigger the error), and get on with your life. I've given up reporting bugs. It's a waste of time.
That's how you deal with compiler bugs: figure out how to get around them and get on with your work.
No, I'm not bitter...
That's known as "Yoda style"
I just want to correct this, not to prove how smart I am but because there are novice programmers out there who will learn from this case. The statement:
/* correction */
if (i = 1) {
is equivalent to:
i = 1;
if (i) {
the compiler had done exactly what it should according to the standard...
That's even better - it means that you've found a bug in the standard! ;-)
My previous was modded up, so here's some more checks.
During boot, the system would execute a representative sample of CPU instructions, in order to test that the CPU wasn't damaged. Every mode of memory storage (ptr, ptr++, --ptr), add, subtract, multiply, divide, increment &c.
During boot, all memory was checked - not a burin-in test, just a quick check for integrity. The system wrote 0, 0xFF, A5, 5A and read the output back. This checked for wires shorted to ground/VCC, and wires shorted together.
During boot, the .bss segment was filled with a pattern, and as a rule, all programs were required to initialize all of their static variables. Each routine had an xxxINIT function which was called at boot. You could never assume a static variable was initialized to zero - this caught a lot of "uninitialized variable" errors.
(This allowed us to reboot specific systems without rebooting the system. Call the SerialINIT function, and don't worry about reinitializing that section's static vars.)
The program code was checksummed (1K at a time) continuously.
When filling memory, what pattern should you use? The theory was that any program using an uninitialized variable would crash immediately because of the pattern. 0xA5 is a good choice:
1) It's not 0, 1, or -1, which are common program constants.
2) It's not a printable character
3) It's a *really big* number (negative or unsigned), so array indexing should fail
4) It's not a valid floating point or double
5) Being odd, it's not a valid pointer
Whenever we use enums, we always start the first one at a different number; ie:
enum Day { Sat = 100, Sun, Mon... } ... }
enum Month { Jan = 200, Feb, Mar,
Note that the enums for Day aren't the same as Month, so if the program inadvertently stores one in the other, the program will crash. Also, the enums aren't small integers (ie - 0, 1, 2), which are used for lots of things in other places. Storing a zero in a Day will cause an error.
(This was easy to implement. Just grep for "enum" in the code, and ensure that each one starts on a different "hundred" (ie - one starts at 100, one starts at 200, and so on).)
The nice thing about safety cert is that the hardware engineer was completely into it as well. If there was any way for the CPU to test the hardware, he'd put it into the design.
You could loopback the serial port (ARINC on aircraft) to see if the transmitter hardware was working, you could switch the A/D converters to a voltage reference, he put resistors in the control switches so that we could test for broken wires, and so on.
(Recent Australian driver couldn't get his vehicle out of cruise-control because the on/off control wasn't working. He also couldn't turn the engine off (modern vehicle) nor shift to neutral (shift-by-wire). Hilarity ensued. Vehicle CPU should abort cruise control if it doesn't see a periodic heartbeat from the steering-wheel computer. But, I digress...)
If you're interested in the software safety systems, look up the Therac some time. Particularly, the analysis of the software bugs. Had the system been peppered with ASSERTs, no deaths would have occurred.
P.S. - If you happen to be building a safety cert system, I'm available to answer questions.
FLAC has a verify mode when encoding which, in parallel, decodes the encoded output and compares it against the original input to make sure they're identical. Every once in a while I'd get a report that there were verification failures, implying FLAC had a bug.
If it were actually a FLAC bug, the error would be repeatable* (same error in the same place) because the algorithm is deterministic, but upon rerunning the exact same command the users would get no error, or (rarely) an error in a different place. Then they'd run some other hardware checker and find the real problem.
Turns out FLAC encoding is also a nice little hardware stressor.
(* Pedants: yes, there could be some pseudo-random memory corruption, etc but that never turned out to be the case. PS I love valgrind.)
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec