Problem : I am using both std::exception and std::bad_alloc to catch exception. Something is wrong with the order of the try catch that I am using. I attached sample code for reference.
Expected : If my error is bad_alloc then the bad_alloc exception is thrown.
Observed : My error is bad_alloc, but exception is thrown.
Sample Code :
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
using namespace std;
void goesWrong()
{
bool error1Detected = true;
bool error2Detected = false;
if (error1Detected)
{
throw bad_alloc();
}
if (error2Detected)
{
throw exception();
}
}
int main()
{
try
{
goesWrong();
}
catch (exception &e)
{
cout << "Catching exception: " << e.what() << endl;
}
catch (bad_alloc &e)
{
cout << "Catching bad_alloc: " << e.what() << endl;
}
return 0;
}
You have to put your exceptions in reverse order, regarding their inheritance relationship. std::exception is the parent class of std::bad_alloc, that is why it is found before in the catch list. So you have to transform your code to be:
try {
goesWrong();
}
catch (bad_alloc &e)
{
cout << "Catching bad_alloc: " << e.what() << endl;
}
catch (exception &e)
{
cout << "Catching exception: " << e.what() << endl;
}
You're not limited to catch objects: you can throw integers, chars... whatever. In that case, catch(...) is the only secure way to catch them all.
That said, using objects from the standard class library is the advised way to do it. And in this case, since std::exception is the base class for all (standard) exceptions, it will catch all possible exceptions thrown.
You can create your own exception classes deriving them from std::exception, or from std::runtime_error, for example, my personal choice.
Hope this helps.
In C++, the order in which exception handlers are listed is taken into account when matching handlers to exceptions. The first handler which can handle the exception will be called, even if there is a better match further down the list. This is different from Java or C#, where only the best match will be called (and the compiler forces you to put it at the top of the list).
As the exception is passed by reference, polymorphism applies; this means that a subclass can be passed to a handler that expects its parent class. Since std::bad_alloc is a subclass of std::exception, it will be handled by the first catch block.
To get the behaviour you expected, put the catch blocks the other way round:
catch (bad_alloc &e)
{
cout << "Catching bad_alloc: " << e.what() << endl;
}
catch (exception &e)
{
cout << "Catching exception: " << e.what() << endl;
}
This way round, std::bad_alloc will match the first handler, while std::exception and all its other subclasses will match the second.
Related
<C++>In exception handling, do you need to know what exception and where an exception is going to occur? Can you make a code which will print and notify us that an exception occurred somewhere in the program. I mean I have a program in which I don't know if an exception will occur or not, if one was to occur, then it will print to notify us.
Exception handling is something you should design for, and in fact it works very well together with RAII (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/raii).
(Notr On embedded platforms using exceptions, is not so popular because of some runtime overhead). What I personally like about exceptions is that it separates error handling from the normal program flow (there will be hardly any if then else checks when done right)
// Exception handling should be part of your overal design.And many standard library functions can throw exceptions, It is always up to you where you handle them.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <stdexcept>
int get_int_with_local_exception_handling()
{
do
{
try
{
std::cout << "Input an integer (local exception handling, enter a text for exception): ";
std::string input;
std::cin >> input;
// stoi is a function that can throw exceptions
// look at the documentation https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/stol
// and look for exceptions.
//
int value = std::stoi(input);
// if input was ok, no exception was thrown so we can return the value to the client.
return value;
}
// catch by const reference, it avoids copies of the exception
// and makes sure you cannot change the content
catch (const std::invalid_argument& e)
{
// std::exceptions always have a what function with readable info
std::cout << "handling std::invalid_argument, " << e.what() << "\n";
}
catch (const std::out_of_range& e)
{
std::cout << "handling std::out_of_range, " << e.what() << "\n";
}
} while (true);
}
int get_int_no_exception_handling()
{
std::cout << "Input an integer (without exception handling, enter a text for exception): ";
std::string input;
std::cin >> input;
int value = std::stoi(input);
return value;
}
int main()
{
try
{
// this function shows you can handle exceptions locally
// to keep program running
auto value1 = get_int_with_local_exception_handling();
std::cout << "your for input was : " << value1 << "\n";
// this function shows that exceptions can be thrown without
// catching, but then the end up on the next exception handler
// on the stack, which in this case is the one in main
auto value2 = get_int_no_exception_handling();
std::cout << "your input was : " << value1 << "\n";
return 0;
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
std::cout << "Unhandled exception caught, program terminating : " << e.what() << "\n";
return -1;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "Unknown, and unhandled exception caught, program terminating\n";
}
}
Yes and no.
No, because any exception thrown via throw some_exception; can be catched via catch(...).
Yes, because catch(...) is not very useful. You only know that there was an excpetion but not more.
Typically exceptions carry information on the cause that you want to use in the catch. Only as a last resort or when you need to make abolutely sure not to miss any excpetion you should use catch(...):
try {
might_throw_unknown_exceptions();
} catch(std::exception& err) {
std::cout << "there was a runtime error: " << err.what();
} catch(...) {
std::cout << "an unknown excpetion was thrown.";
}
The C++ standard library uses inheritance only sparingly. Exceptions is only place where it is used extensively: All standard exceptions inherit from std::exception and it is good practice to inherit also custom exceptions from it.
I am writing a command-line application in C++. If an unhandled exception occurs, I don't want the app to crash badly, but to clean up as well as possible and print an error message.
How should I catch exceptions at the top-level in order to avoid the program crashing? Should I catch std::exception, ... or something else?
The quality of the cleaning you can do is a function of the exception being thrown.
For example, an exception that you raise yourself (perhaps derived from std::exception; let's call it fooexception) could well be handled quite elegantly.
So really you want a catch site on these lines
try {
/*whatever*/
} catch (fooexception& fe){
/*ToDo - handle my exception*/
} catch (std::exception& e){
/*ToDo - handle this generically*/
} catch (...){
/*Hum. That's bad. Let's do my best*/
}
Extend this at your leisure. Just remember that in a sense, multiple catch blocks behave like if else blocks: always order with the specific exceptions first.
Well, you could catch both:
int main() {
try {
// do stuff
}
catch(const std::exception& e) {
std::cout << "Caught exception: " << e.what() << std::endl;
}
catch(...) {
std::cout << "Caught unknown exception." << std::endl;
}
}
You should catch both, and possibly more. If you use a more specific exception type somewhere in the call stack, try to catch that as well.
Consider the code:
try
{
process();
}
catch (const SpecificException& ex)
{
std::cerr << "SpecificException occured: " << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
catch (const std::runtime_error& ex)
{
std::cerr << "std::runtime_error occured: " << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cerr << "Unknown error occured!" << std::endl; // should never happen hopefully
}
And remember to always sort by specificness of exceptions - the more specialized/derived first, as the runtime will stop at the first catch block able to process the exception (i.e. first catch block with exception type matching or being a base of).
I'm writting an QT-application for ARM-processor. I use gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf compiller.
I try to caught std::exception
try
{
----CODE HERE----
}
catch(QException e)
{
qCritical() << e.what();
}
catch(std::exception e)
{
qCritical() << e.what();
}
As output I have:
----- Dev started -----
std::exception
----- Dev finished -----
There is no detailed information about an exception.
Ho can I see what kind of std::excpetpion occured?
The another problem, that it's qt application. Makefile is generated by qmake. I can't directly pass options to gcc compiller.
The problem is that you're slicing the exception object—you're catching it by value, so any subclass information is lost. Catch it by const & instead to keep its type & data alive:
catch(const std::exception &e)
{
qCritical() << e.what();
}
Additionally, if you want special handling for more specific types (classes derived from std::exception), you can add it:
catch (const std::invalid_argument &e)
{
qCritical() << "Invalid argument: " << e.what();
}
catch (const std::domain_error &e)
{
qCritical() << "Domain error: " << e.what();
}
catch (const std::excetion &e)
{
qCritical() << "Other exception: " << e.what();
}
Note that the order of catch clauses is important: they are processed sequentially, and the first one matching is used. So derived classes have to be listed before the base class.
I'm not sure I have correctly understood your problem, but straightly answering your question is easy:
try
{
----CODE HERE----
}
catch(const QException& e)
{
qCritical() << "QException exception\n" << e.what();
}
catch(const std::exception& e)
{
qCritical() << "standard library exception\n" << e.what();
}
Don't forget that if another type of exception is thrown, you can always catch it with this:
catch(...)
{
qCritical() << "bad bad things happened, unknown exception!\n";
}
Can i implement global exception handling in C++?
My requirement is try...catch block is not used in a piece of code then there should be a global exception handler which will handle all uncaught exception.
Can i achieve it, please give your valuable suggestion : )
I always wrap the outer-most function in a try-catch like this:
int main()
{
try {
// start your program/function
Program program; program.Run();
}
catch (std::exception& ex) {
std::cerr << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
catch (...) {
std::cerr << "Caught unknown exception." << std::endl;
}
}
This will catch everything. Good exception handling in C++ is not about writing try-catch all over, but to catch where you know how to handle it (like you seem to want to do). In this case the only thing to do is to write the error message to stderr so the user can act on it.
you can use a combination of set_terminate and current_exception()
i wanted to do the same, here's what i came up with
std::set_terminate([]() -> void {
std::cerr << "terminate called after throwing an instance of ";
try
{
std::rethrow_exception(std::current_exception());
}
catch (const std::exception &ex)
{
std::cerr << typeid(ex).name() << std::endl;
std::cerr << " what(): " << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cerr << typeid(std::current_exception()).name() << std::endl;
std::cerr << " ...something, not an exception, dunno what." << std::endl;
}
std::cerr << "errno: " << errno << ": " << std::strerror(errno) << std::endl;
std::abort();
});
in addition to checking what(), it also checks ernno/std::strerror() - in the future i intend to add stack traces as well through exeinfo/backtrace() too
the catch(...) is in case someone threw something other than exception.. for example throw 1; (throw int :| )
In C++ the terminate function is called when an exception is uncaught. You can install your own terminate handler with the set_terminate function. The downside is that your terminate handler may never return; it must terminate your program with some operating system primitive. The default is just to call abort()
When an exception is raised, if is not caught at that point, it goes up the hierarchy until it is actually caught. If there is no code to handle the exception the program terminates.
You can run specific code before termination to do cleanup by using your own handlers of set_unexpected or set_terminate
Is there some way to catch exceptions which are otherwise unhandled (including those thrown outside the catch block)?
I'm not really concerned about all the normal cleanup stuff done with exceptions, just that I can catch it, write it to log/notify the user and exit the program, since the exceptions in these casese are generaly fatal, unrecoverable errors.
something like:
global_catch()
{
MessageBox(NULL,L"Fatal Error", L"A fatal error has occured. Sorry for any inconvience", MB_ICONERROR);
exit(-1);
}
global_catch(Exception *except)
{
MessageBox(NULL,L"Fatal Error", except->ToString(), MB_ICONERROR);
exit(-1);
}
This can be used to catch unexpected exceptions.
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "OMG! an unexpected exception has been caught" << std::endl;
}
Without a try catch block, I don't think you can catch exceptions, so structure your program so the exception thowing code is under the control of a try/catch.
Check out std::set_terminate()
Edit: Here's a full-fledged example with exception matching:
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
#include <stdexcept>
struct FooException: std::runtime_error {
FooException(const std::string& what): std::runtime_error(what) {}
};
int main() {
std::set_terminate([]() {
try {
std::rethrow_exception(std::current_exception());
} catch (const FooException& e) {
std::cerr << "Unhandled FooException: " << e.what() << std::endl;
} catch (const std::exception& e) {
std::cerr << "Unhandled exception: " << e.what() << std::endl;
} catch (...) {
std::cerr << "Unhandled exception of unknown type" << std::endl;
}
std::abort();
});
throw FooException("Bad things have happened.");
// throw std::runtime_error("Bad things have happened.");
// throw 9001;
}
You can use SetUnhandledExceptionFilter on Windows, which will catch all unhandled SEH exceptions.
Generally this will be sufficient for all your problems as IIRC all the C++ exceptions are implemented as SEH.
Without any catch block, you won't catch any exceptions. You can have a catch(...) block in your main() (and its equivalent in each additional thread). In this catch block you can recover the exception details and you can do something about them, like logging and exit.
However, there are also downside about a general catch(...) block: the system finds that the exception has been handled by you, so it does not give any more help. On Unix/Linux, this help would constitute creating a CORE file, which you could load into the debugger and see the original location of the unexcepted exception. If you are handling it with catch(...) this information would be already lost.
On Windows, there are no CORE files, so I would suggest to have the catch(...) block. From that block, you would typically call a function to resurrect the actual exception:
std::string ResurrectException()
try {
throw;
} catch (const std::exception& e) {
return e.what();
} catch (your_custom_exception_type& e) {
return e.ToString();
} catch(...) {
return "Ünknown exception!";
}
}
int main() {
try {
// your code here
} catch(...) {
std::string message = ResurrectException();
std::cerr << "Fatal exception: " << message << "\n";
}
}
Update: This covers c++98 only.
From More Effective C++ by Meyers (pg 76), you could define a function that gets called when a function generates an exception that is not defined by its exception specification.
void convertUnexpected()
{
// You could redefine the exception here into a known exception
// throw UnexpectedException();
// ... or I suppose you could log an error and exit.
}
In your application register the function:
std::set_unexpected( convertUnexpected );
Your function convertUnexpected() will get called if a function generates an exception that is not defined by its exception specification... which means this only works if you are using exception specifications. ;(
Provided that C++11 is available, this approach may be used (see example from: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/error/rethrow_exception):
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>
void onterminate() {
try {
auto unknown = std::current_exception();
if (unknown) {
std::rethrow_exception(unknown);
} else {
std::cerr << "normal termination" << std::endl;
}
} catch (const std::exception& e) { // for proper `std::` exceptions
std::cerr << "unexpected exception: " << e.what() << std::endl;
} catch (...) { // last resort for things like `throw 1;`
std::cerr << "unknown exception" << std::endl;
}
}
int main () {
std::set_terminate(onterminate); // set custom terminate handler
// code which may throw...
return 0;
}
This approach also allows you to customize console output for unhandled exceptions: to have something like this
unexpected exception: wrong input parameters
Aborted
instead of this:
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::logic_error'
what(): wrong input parameters
Aborted
This is what I always do in main()
int main()
{
try
{
// Do Work
}
catch(std::exception const& e)
{
Log(e.what());
// If you are feeling mad (not in main) you could rethrow!
}
catch(...)
{
Log("UNKNOWN EXCEPTION");
// If you are feeling mad (not in main) you could rethrow!
}
}
Use catch (...) in all of your exception barriers (not just the main thread). I suggest that you always rethrow (...) and redirect standard output/error to the log file, as you can't do meaningful RTTI on (...). OTOH, compiler like GCC will output a fairly detailed description about the unhandled exception: the type, the value of what() etc.