<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Problems debugging in Software Archive</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932588#M15193</link>
    <description>If your program is correct, then optimization should always result in a correctly-running program.  My guess is that you have a coding error that is revealed by optimization - this is the usual case (but not always).  So, send us as short an example as you can of a program that demonstrates the problem and we'll be glad to look at it.</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:35:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2000-12-22T02:35:27Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Problems debugging</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932585#M15190</link>
      <description>I need some help with debugging problems.  Specifically, when I compile a release version of my code, I am getting an access violation exception (instruction references memory that cannot be read).  However, when I compile the code with the default debug options, everything runs fine.  How is one expected to debug a program if they cannot reproduce the problem when debugging?  Has anyone else run into this problem, and, if so, what was their work around?     &lt;BR /&gt;     &lt;BR /&gt;I have run into a similar problem with CVF before in that there is no option to initialize variables to zero.  Because of this, I obtained very different results from my program depending upon whether I compiled it with debug or release options.  I finally tracked down the problem to the fact that there is no option to zero out all uninitialized variables.  I realize that this practice is frowned upon by the computer science elite, but without the ability to set default initialization values for variables, then a debugger is essentially useless if it gives different results depending upon how the program is compiled.  I understand the reasoning behind not allowing a compiler to initialize variables - this forces the programmer to do it.  But forcing a programmer to initialize all variables does not ensure that the programmer will initialize them correctly.  Apparently, it just makes debugging a whole lot more difficult.  Anyway, any suggestions for solving my debugging problem?</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:57:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932585#M15190</guid>
      <dc:creator>Intel_C_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-21T05:57:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problems debugging</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932586#M15191</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You can add debugging support to a "Release" configuration.  Set the Release configuration as the active configuration.  Select Project -&amp;gt; Settings -&amp;gt; Fortran tab -&amp;gt; General category.  Set "Debugging level" to Full.  Select the Link tab -&amp;gt; General category.  Select "Generate debug info".&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;After rebuilding, you can do the same sort of debugging that you would do with a Debug build.  However, some things may be a little "funny", since code can be moved/eliminated by compiler optimizations.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Good luck with finding the problem,&lt;BR /&gt;Leo</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:02:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932586#M15191</guid>
      <dc:creator>Intel_C_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-21T08:02:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problems debugging</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932587#M15192</link>
      <description>Leo, &lt;BR /&gt; &lt;BR /&gt;Leo, thanks for the information.  However, I found the problem by changing the optimization option from maximum optimization to full optimization.  I don't think this is a good thing for the compiler to generate instructions that try to access memory that cannot be read. I think this falls into the realm of a buggy compiler.  What are your feelings on this?</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:09:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932587#M15192</guid>
      <dc:creator>Intel_C_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-22T01:09:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problems debugging</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932588#M15193</link>
      <description>If your program is correct, then optimization should always result in a correctly-running program.  My guess is that you have a coding error that is revealed by optimization - this is the usual case (but not always).  So, send us as short an example as you can of a program that demonstrates the problem and we'll be glad to look at it.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 02:35:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Problems-debugging/m-p/932588#M15193</guid>
      <dc:creator>Steven_L_Intel1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2000-12-22T02:35:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

