I am doing a little code refactoring. Usually, after I rewrite/reimplement everything, I do a clean-up first. This means, I remove unused libraries, unused functions etc.
My question is: How can I find functions that are not used anywhere? by this I mean there is only a definition and declaration and nothing more?
Even if it is possible, I don't think cscope is the best tool in your situation.
You'll probably have more success by using a static code analyzer tool, that will also find other problems like non initialized or unused variables, dead code, etc.
I don't know which language(s) you are working with, but generally there are multiple open source solutions available.
Related
Here's something I tried to do, and it works well. I find it useful, but it feels like a hack, so I'm afraid it will break in the future.
I'm working on converting a large project to Bazel, and we have lots of local wrappers, something like:
my_cc_library(name='a', srcs=['lib.c'])
my_cc_binary(name='b', deps=['a'], srcs=['main.c'])
This requires lots of load commands, which are annoying and a repeating source of errors.
If it was normal Python, I'd simply import a whole module. But Skylark requires loading functions one by one.
I can remove the need for individual loads, using a struct.
In my.bzl:
def _my_cc_library(...): ...
def _my_cc_binary(...): ...
my = struct(cc_library=_my_cc_library, cc_binary=_my_cc_binary)
In various BUILD files:
load('//my.bzl', 'my')
my.cc_library(name='a', srcs=['lib.c'])
my.cc_binary(name='b', deps=['a'], srcs=['main.c'])
As I wrote above, it all works well. I can use if for wrappers to native rules, and for various other functions.
But an I abusing the language? Is it prone to break in the future?
Thanks.
This pattern is used in other places (e.g. https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel-skylib/blob/master/lib/collections.bzl), it's safe to use it.
Not all tools support it well, though. For example, you won't be able to update your BUILD files with Buildozer - although it's something that can be fixed.
This requires lots of load commands, which are annoying and a repeating source of errors.
I agree it's annoying. In the future, we should have better tooling for updating load lines (to automatically add/remove them).
Rules in BUILD files look like my_cc_library(...) due to historical reasons. For a long time, load didn't exist and all rules were hard-coded in Bazel. Maybe we should encourage the my.cc_library(...) syntax and make it easier to use.
This question has some answers on SO but mine is slightly different. Before marking as duplicate, please give it a shot.
MSVC has always provided the /Gy compiler option to enable identical functions to be folded into COMDAT sections. At the same time, the linker also provides the /OPT:ICF option. Is my understanding right that these two options must be used in conjunction? That is, while the former packages functions into COMDAT, the latter eliminates redundant COMDATs. Is that correct?
If yes, then either we use both or turn off both?
Answer from someone who communicated with me off-line. Helped me understand these options a lot better.
===================================
That is essentially true. Suppose we talk just C, or C++ but with no member functions. Without /Gy, the compiler creates object files that are in some sense irreducible. If the linker wants just one function from the object, it gets them all. This is specially a consideration in programming for libraries, such that if you mean to be kind to the library's users, you should write your library as lots of small object files, typically one non-static function per object, so that the user of the library doesn't bloat from having to carry code that actually never executes.
With /Gy, the compiler creates object files that have COMDATs. Each function is in its own COMDAT, which is to some extent a mini-object. If the linker wants just one function from the object, it can pick out just that one. The linker's /OPT switch gives you some control over what the linker does with this selectivity - but without /Gy there's nothing to select.
Or very little. It's at least conceivable that the linker could, for instance, fold functions that are each the whole of the code in an object file and happen to have identical code. It's certainly conceivable that the linker could eliminate a whole object file that contains nothing that's referenced. After all, it does this with object files in libraries. The rule in practice, however, used to be that if you add a non-COMDAT object file to the linker's command line, then you're saying you want that in the binary even if unreferenced. The difference between what's conceivable and what's done is typically huge.
Best, then, to stick with the quick answer. The linker options benefit from being able to separate functions (and variables) from inside each object file, but the separation depends on the code and data to have been organised into COMDATs, which is the compiler's work.
===================================
As answered by Raymond Chen in Jan 2013
As explained in the documentation for /Gy, function-level linking
allows functions to be discardable during the "unused function" pass,
if you ask for it via /OPT:REF. It does not alter the actual classical
model for linking. The flag name is misleading. It's not "perform
function-level linking". It merely enables it by telling the linker
where functions begin and end. And it's not so much function-level
linking as it is function-level unlinking. -Raymond
(This snippet might make more sense with some further context:here are the posts about classical linking model:1, 2
So in a nutshell - yes. If you activate one switch without the other, there would be no observable impact.
I've got some unused functionality in my codebase, but it's hard to identify. The code has evolved over the last year as I explore its problem space and possible solutions. What I'm needing to do is find that unused code so I can get rid of it. I'm happy if it deals with the problem on an exportable name basis.GHC has warnings that deal with non-exported unused code. Any tools specific to this task would be of interest.
However, I'm curious about a comprehensive cross referencing tool. I can find the unused code with such a tool. Years ago when I was working in C and assembler, I found that a good xref was a pretty handy tool, useful for many different purposes.
I'm getting nowhere with googling. Apparently in Haskell the dominant meaning of cross-reference is within literate programming. Though maybe something there would be useful.
I don’t know of such a tool, so in the past I have done a bit of a hack instead.
If you have a comprehensive test suite, you can run it with GHC’s code coverage tracing enabled. Compile with -fhpc and use hpc markup to generate annotated source. This gives you the union of unused code and untested code, both of which you would probably like to address anyway.
SourceGraph can give you a bunch of information which you may also find useful.
There is now a tool for this very purpose: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/weeder
It's been around since 2017, and while it has limitations, it definitely helps with large codebases.
I have been getting very frustrated recently in dealing with a massive bulk of legacy code which I am trying to get familiar with.
Say I try to search for a particular function call, I get loads of results that turn out to be completely irrelevant; some of them are easy to spot, eg a comment saying
// Fixed functionality in foo() so don't need to handle this here any more
But others are much harder to spot manually, because they turn out to be calls from other functions in modules that are only compiled in certain cases, or are part of a much larger block of code that is #if 0'd out in its entirety.
What I'd like would be a search tool that would allow me to search for a term and give me the choice to include or exclude commented out or #if 0'd out code. Then the search results would be displayed alongside a list of #defines that are required in order for that snippet of code to be relevant.
I'm working in C / C++, but other than the specific comment syntax I guess the techniques should be more generally applicable.
Does such a tool exist?
Not entirely what you're after, but I find this quite handy.
GrepWin - A free visual "grep" tool for searching files.
I find it quite helpful because:
Its a separate app (doesn't lock up my editor)
Handles Regular expressions
Its fast
Can specify what folder to search, and what filetypes (handles regex's here too)
Can limit by file size
Can include subdirs (or exclude by regex)
etc.
Almost any decent source browser will let you go to where a function is defined, and/or list all the calls of that function and take you directly to a call site. This will normally be based on a fairly complete parse of the source code so it will ignore comments, code that's excluded by the preprocessor, and so on (in fact, in at least one case, the parser used by the source browser is almost certainly better than the one used in the compiler itself).
I have inherited a very large and complex project (actually, a 'solution' consisting of 119 'projects', most of which are DLLs) that was built and tested under VC8 (VS2005), and I have the task of porting it to VC9 (VS2008).
The porting process I used was:
Copy the VC8 .sln file and rename it
to a VC9 .sln file.
Copy all of
the VC8 project files, and rename
them to VC9 project files.
Edit
all of the VC9 project files,
s/vc8/vc9.
Edit the VC9 .sln,
s/vc8/vc9/
Load the VC9 .sln with
VS2008, and let the IDE 'convert'
all of the project files.
Fix
compiler and linker errors until I
got a good build.
So far, I have run into the following issues in that last step.
1) A change in the way decorated names are calculated, causing truncation of the names.
This is more than just a warning (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/074af4b6.aspx). Libraries built with this warning will not link with other modules. Applying the solution given in MSDN was non-trivial, but doable. I addressed this problem separately in How do I increase the allowed decorated name length in VC9 (MSVC 2008)?
2) A change that does not allow the assignment of zero to an iterator. This is per the spec, and it was fairly easy to find and fix these previously-allowed coding errors. Instead of assignment of zero to an iterator, use the value end().
3) for-loop scope is now per the ANSI standard. Another easy-to-fix problem.
4) More space required for pre-compiled headers. In some cases a LOT more space was required. I ended up using /Zm999 to provide the maximum PCH space. If PCH memory usage gets bumped up again, I assume that I will have to forgo PCH altogether, and just endure the increase in what is already a very long build time.
5) A change in requirements for copy ctors and default dtors. It appears that in template classes, under certain conditions that I haven't quite figured out yet, the compiler no longer generates a default ctor or a default dtor. I suspect this is a bug in VC9, but there may be something else that I'm doing wrong. If so, I'd sure like to know what it is.
6) The GUIDs in the sln and vcproj files were not changed. This does not appear to impact the build in any way that I can detect, but it is worrisome nevertheless.
Note that despite all of these issues, the project built, ran, and passed extensive QA testing under VC8. I have also back-ported all of the changes to the VC8 projects, where they still build and run just as happily as they did before (using VS2005/VC8). So, all of my changes required for a VC9 build at least appear to be backward-compatible, although the regression testing is still underway.
Now for the really hard problem: I have run into a difference in the startup sequence between VC8 and VC9 projects. The program uses a small-object allocator modeled after Loki, in Andrei Alexandrescu's Book Modern C++ Design. This allocator is initialized using a global variable defined in the main program module.
Under VC8, this global variable is constructed at the very beginning of the program startup, from code in a module crtexe.c. Under VC9, the first module that executes is crtdll.c, which indicates that the startup sequence has been changed. The DLLs that are starting up appear to be confusing the small-object allocator by allocating and deallocating memory before the global object can initialize the statistics, which leads to some spurious diagnostics. The operation of the program does not appear to be materially affected, but the QA folks will not allow the spurious diagnostics to get past them.
Is there some way to force the construction of a global object prior to loading DLLs?
What other porting issues am I likely to encounter?
Is there some way to force the construction of a global object prior to loading DLLs?
How about the DELAYLOAD option? So that DLLs aren't loaded until their first call?
That is a tough problem, mostly because you've inherited a design that's inherently dangerous because you're not supposed to rely on the initialization order of global variables.
It sounds like something you could try to work around by replacing the global variable with a singleton that other functions retrieve by calling a global function or method that returns a pointer to the singleton object. If the object exists at the time of the call, the function returns a pointer to it. Otherwise, it allocates a new one and returns a pointer to the newly allocated object.
The problem, of course, is that I can't think of a singleton implementation that would avoid the problem you're describing. Maybe this discussion would be useful: http://www.oneunified.net/blog/Personal/SoftwareDevelopment/CPP/Singleton.article
That's certainly an interesting problem. I don't have a solution other than perhaps to change the design so that there is no dependence on undefined behavior of the order or link/dll startup. Have you considered linking with the older linker? (or whatever the VS.NET term is)
Because the behavior of your variable and allocator relied on some (unknown at the time) arbitrary order of startup I would probably fix that so that it is not an issue in the future. I guess you are really asking if anyone knows how to do some voodoo in VC9 to make the problem disappear. I am interested in hearing it as well.
How about this,
Make your main program a DLL too, call it main.dll, linked to all the other ones, and export the main function as say, mainEntry(). Remove the global variable.
Create a new main exe which has the global variable and its initialization, but doesn't link statically to any of the other application DLLs (except for the allocator stuff).
This new main.exe then dynamically loads the main.dll using LoadLibrary(), then uses GetProcAddress to call mainEntry().
The solution to the problem turned out to be more straightforward than I originally thought. The initialization order problem was caused by the existence of several global variables of types derived from std container types (a basic design flaw that predated my position with that company). The solution was to replace all such globals with singletons. There were about 100 of them.
Once this was done, the initialization (and destruction) order was under programmer control.