rr VS JET.jl

I think this tool must share a lot techniques and use cases with rr. I wonder how it compares in various aspects.

https://rr-project.org/

rr "sells" as a "reversible debugger", but it obviously needs the determinism for its record and replay to work, and AFAIK it employs similar techniques regarding system call interception and serializing on a single CPU. The reversible debugger aspect is built on periodic snapshotting on top of it and replaying from those snapshots, AFAIK. They package it in a gdb compatible interface.

Hermit also lists record/replay as a motivation, although it doesn't list reversible debugging in general.

Interesting. Perhaps you can inspect the disassembly of the function in question when using Graal and HotSpot. It is likely related to that.

Another debugging technique we use for heisenbugs is to see if `rr` [1] can reproduce it. If it can then that's great as it allows you to go back in time to debug what may have caused the bug. But `rr` is often not great for concurrency bugs since it emulates a single-core machine. Though debugging a VM is generally a nightmare. What we desperately need is a debugger that can debug both the VM and the language running on top of it. Usually it's one or the other.

> In general I’d argue you haven’t fixed a bug unless you understand why it happened and why your fix worked, which makes this frustrating, since every indication is that the bug exists within proprietary code that is out of my reach.

Were you using Oracle GraalVM? GraalVM community edition is open source, so maybe it's worth checking if it is reproducible in that.

[1]: https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr

https://rr-project.org/ had the same problem. They use the retired conditional branch counter instead of instruction counter, and then instruction steeping until at the correct address.

That'll work great for your Distributed QSort Incorporated startup, where the only product is a sorting algorithm.

Formal software verification is very useful. But what can be usefully formalized is rather limited, and what can be formalized correctly in practice is even more limited. That means you need to restrict your scope to something sane and useful. As a result, in the real world running thousands of tests is practically useful. (Well, it depends on what those tests are; it's easy to write 1000s of tests that either test the same thing, or only test the things that will pass and not the things that would fail.) They are especially useful if running in a mode where the unexpected happens often, as it sounds like this system can do. (It's reminiscent of rr's chaos mode -- https://rr-project.org/ linking to https://robert.ocallahan.org/2016/02/introducing-rr-chaos-mo... )

The approach of check-pointing computation such that it is resumable and restartable sounds similar to a time-traveling debugger, like rr or WinDbg:

https://rr-project.org/

https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-hardware/drivers/debugge...

https://github.com/rr-debugger/rr?tab=readme-ov-file#system-...

An informative discussion on julia forum. Have you tried using https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl to minimize type instabilities?

For instance, https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl is still in its relative infancy, but it's played a big role in detecting quite a few potential bugs that had never been reported to use by users or caught in our testing infrastructure. There's also been a lot developments like interfaces to RR the time travelling debugger https://rr-project.org/ which helps us better understand and catch some very hard to debug non-deterministic bugs.

Have you seen Shuhei Tadowaki's work on JET.jl (?)

If you're curious: https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl

This may seem more about performance (than IDE development) but Shuhei is one of the driving contributors behind developing the capabilities to use compiler capabilities for IDE integration -- and indeed JET.jl contains the kernel of a number of these capabilities.

This is sort of being done right now, as dynamic languages have begun to adopt gradual typing... at least Python and Julia, that I know of.

If something like [JET.jl](https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl) become ubiquitous in Julia, one could add a function that pointed out all the places in the code where types are not fully inferred by the compiler.

It'll never be quite the same level of safety as a static language, however.

- Pattern matching (sometimes you don't want the overhead of a method lookup)

[1]: https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl

You can use the `@code_warntype` macro to check for type stability, which is very helpful for detecting such performance pitfalls on single function level. In the future, https://github.com/aviatesk/JET.jl may give a more powerful way to do it.