I am just starting to learn C and installing now QT x64 (form here: http://tver-soft.org/qt64). I have two options to install: MinGW 4.9.2 SEH or MinGW 4.9.2 SJLJ.
Question: Which is better to install and why?
I read What is difference between sjlj vs dwarf vs seh? and https://wiki.qt.io/MinGW-64-bit#Exception_handling:_SJLJ.2C_DWARF.2C_and_SEH but understand nothing (new to C and compiller languages).
SJLJ and SEH are two different exception handling systems.
For the specific differences, the resources you've already seen cover everything.
However, as for which one is better to install, go with SJLJ unless you know that you need SEH.
2019 Update: On modern systems, there's no reason to use SJLJ, so the advice above should probably be flipped. SEH is more common now. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter, since it's easy to switch between the two.
SJLJ
SJLJ is more widely supported across architectures, and is more robust. Also, SJLJ exceptions can be thrown through libraries that use other exception handling systems, including C libraries. However, it has a performance penalty.
SEH
SEH is much more efficient (no performance penalty), but unfortunately is not well-supported. SEH exceptions will cause bad things to happen when thrown through libraries that do not also use SEH.
As far as your code is concerned, there are no real differences. You can always switch compilers later if you need to.
I discovered one difference between SJLJ and SEH exception handling in MinGW-w64: C signal handlers set by signal() function do not work in SJLJ version as soon as at least one try{} block gets executed at the run time. Since this issue does not seem to be described anywhere, I am putting it here for the record.
The following example (test_signals.cpp) demonstrates this.
// This sample demonstrates how try {} block disables handler set by signal()
// on MinGW-w64 with GCC SJLJ build
#include <signal.h>
#include <iostream>
int izero = 0;
static void SIGWntHandler (int signum)//sub_code)
{
std::cout << "In signal handler, signum = " << signum << std::endl;
std::cout << "Now exiting..." << std::endl;
std::exit(1);
}
int main (void)
{
std::cout << "Entered main(), arming signal handler..." << std::endl;
if (signal (SIGSEGV, (void(*)(int))SIGWntHandler) == SIG_ERR)
std::cout << "signal(OSD::SetSignal) error\n";
if (signal (SIGFPE, (void(*)(int))SIGWntHandler) == SIG_ERR)
std::cout << "signal(OSD::SetSignal) error\n";
if (signal (SIGILL, (void(*)(int))SIGWntHandler) == SIG_ERR)
std::cout << "signal(OSD::SetSignal) error\n";
// this try block disables signal handler...
try { std::cout << "In try block" << std::endl; } catch(char*) {}
std::cout << "Doing bad things to cause signal..." << std::endl;
izero = 1 / izero; // cause integer division by zero
char* ptrnull = 0;
ptrnull[0] = '\0'; // cause access violation
std::cout << "We are too lucky..." << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Builds with:
g++ test_signals.cpp -o test_signals.exe
The expected output is:
Entered main(), arming signal handler...
In try block
Doing bad things to cause signal...
In signal handler, signum = 8
Now exiting...
The actual output when I build with MigGW-w64 SJLJ variant is:
Entered main(), arming signal handler...
In try block
Doing bad things to cause signal...
The application gets terminated silently after some delay. That is, signal handler does not get called. If try{} block is commented out, signal handler gets called properly.
When using MinGW-w64 SEH variant, it behaves as expected (signal handler gets called).
I do not have clear idea of why this problem occurs, thus will be grateful if someone can give an explanation.
Related
Here is a simple piece of code where a division by zero occurs. I'm trying to catch it :
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int Dividend = 10;
int Divisor = 0;
try {
std::cout << Dividend / Divisor;
} catch(...) {
std::cout << "Error.";
}
return 0;
}
But the application crashes anyway (even though I put the option -fexceptions of MinGW).
Is it possible to catch such an exception (which I understand is not a C++ exception, but a FPU exception) ?
I'm aware that I could check for the divisor before dividing, but I made the assumption that, because a division by zero is rare (at least in my app), it would be more efficient to try dividing (and catching the error if it occurs) than testing each time the divisor before dividing.
I'm doing these tests on a WindowsXP computer, but would like to make it cross platform.
It's not an exception. It's an error which is determined at hardware level and is returned back to the operating system, which then notifies your program in some OS-specific way about it (like, by killing the process).
I believe that in such case what happens is not an exception but a signal. If it's the case: The operating system interrupts your program's main control flow and calls a signal handler, which - in turn - terminates the operation of your program.
It's the same type of error which appears when you dereference a null pointer (then your program crashes by SIGSEGV signal, segmentation fault).
You could try to use the functions from <csignal> header to try to provide a custom handler for the SIGFPE signal (it's for floating point exceptions, but it might be the case that it's also raised for integer division by zero - I'm really unsure here). You should however note that the signal handling is OS-dependent and MinGW somehow "emulates" the POSIX signals under Windows environment.
Here's the test on MinGW 4.5, Windows 7:
#include <csignal>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void handler(int a) {
cout << "Signal " << a << " here!" << endl;
}
int main() {
signal(SIGFPE, handler);
int a = 1/0;
}
Output:
Signal 8 here!
And right after executing the signal handler, the system kills the process and displays an error message.
Using this, you can close any resources or log an error after a division by zero or a null pointer dereference... but unlike exceptions that's NOT a way to control your program's flow even in exceptional cases. A valid program shouldn't do that. Catching those signals is only useful for debugging/diagnosing purposes.
(There are some useful signals which are very useful in general in low-level programming and don't cause your program to be killed right after the handler, but that's a deep topic).
Dividing by zero is a logical error, a bug by the programmer. You shouldn't try to cope with it, you should debug and eliminate it. In addition, catching exceptions is extremely expensive- way more than divisor checking will be.
You can use Structured Exception Handling to catch the divide by zero error. How that's achieved depends on your compiler. MSVC offers a function to catch Structured Exceptions as catch(...) and also provides a function to translate Structured Exceptions into regular exceptions, as well as offering __try/__except/__finally. However I'm not familiar enough with MinGW to tell you how to do it in that compiler.
There's isn't a
language-standard way of catching
the divide-by-zero from the CPU.
Don't prematurely "optimize" away a
branch. Is your application
really CPU-bound in this context? I doubt it, and it isn't really an
optimization if you break your code.
Otherwise, I could make your code
even faster:
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* Fastest program ever! */ }
Divide by zero is not an exception in C++, see https://web.archive.org/web/20121227152410/http://www.jdl.co.uk/briefings/divByZeroInCpp.html
Somehow the real explanation is still missing.
Is it possible to catch such an exception (which I understand is not a C++ exception, but a FPU exception) ?
Yes, your catch block should work on some compilers. But the problem is that your exception is not an FPU exception. You are doing integer division. I don’t know whether that’s also a catchable error but it’s not an FPU exception, which uses a feature of the IEEE representation of floating point numbers.
On Windows (with Visual C++), try this:
BOOL SafeDiv(INT32 dividend, INT32 divisor, INT32 *pResult)
{
__try
{
*pResult = dividend / divisor;
}
__except(GetExceptionCode() == EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO ?
EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER : EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_SEARCH)
{
return FALSE;
}
return TRUE;
}
MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms681409(v=vs.85).aspx
Well, if there was an exception handling about this, some component actually needed to do the check. Therefore you don't lose anything if you check it yourself. And there's not much that's faster than a simple comparison statement (one single CPU instruction "jump if equal zero" or something like that, don't remember the name)
To avoid infinite "Signal 8 here!" messages, just add 'exit' to Kos nice code:
#include <csignal>
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib> // exit
using namespace std;
void handler(int a) {
cout << "Signal " << a << " here!" << endl;
exit(1);
}
int main() {
signal(SIGFPE, handler);
int a = 1/0;
}
As others said, it's not an exception, it just generates a NaN or Inf.
Zero-divide is only one way to do that. If you do much math, there are lots of ways, like
log(not_positive_number), exp(big_number), etc.
If you can check for valid arguments before doing the calculation, then do so, but sometimes that's hard to do, so you may need to generate and handle an exception.
In MSVC there is a header file #include <float.h> containing a function _finite(x) that tells if a number is finite.
I'm pretty sure MinGW has something similar.
You can test that after a calculation and throw/catch your own exception or whatever.
I try to catch a termination signal to my code to write a restart file before exiting. My solution is based on this answer.
#include <exception>
#include <csignal>
#include <iostream>
class InterruptException : public std::exception
{
public:
InterruptException(int _s) : signal_(_s) { }
int signal() const noexcept
{
return this->signal_;
}
private:
int signal_;
};
/// method to throw exception at signal interrupt
void sig_to_exception(int s)
{
throw InterruptException(s);
}
int main()
{
// activate signal handling
struct sigaction sigIntHandler;
sigIntHandler.sa_handler = sig_to_exception;
sigemptyset(&sigIntHandler.sa_mask);
sigIntHandler.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction(SIGINT, &sigIntHandler, NULL);
try
{
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < 100000000; ++i)
{
std::cout << i << std::endl;
}
}
catch (const InterruptException& e)
{
std::cout << "Received signal " << e.signal() << std::endl;
std::exit(1);
}
catch(...)
{
std::cout << "Other catch!" << std::endl;
}
}
The exception gets thrown fine, however, my catch block does not catch it. The program terminates with an uncaught exception InterruptException. I tried with clang and gcc on MacOS. Any idea why the exception is not caught correctly?
Thanks
Output when compiled with g++ 7.3.0:
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'InterruptException'
what(): std::exception
Abort trap: 6
Output when compiled with Apple LLVM 9.0.0
libc++abi.dylib: terminating with uncaught exception of type InterruptException: std::exception
PS: It seems when I compile with Apple LLVM the exception gets caught sometimes, but not all the time, which makes this even weirder.
There is very little that you can reliably do in a signal handler. In particular, you cannot throw an exception. The code in the question (and the "answer" that it links to) relies, at best, on compiler/OS-specific behavior. For the limits on what you can do in a signal handler, see this.
Note that the link above refers to signal, which is standard C. sigaction is not standard C, it's POSIX, and the C++ language definition doesn't impose any requirements on a program that uses it.
On most system the stack frame used by the signal handler is not a standard function stack frame as defined by the compiler for function calls.
So throwing out of a sig handler is not supported.
Stack frame for signal handling in the Linux Kernel
From the discussion in the linked question, on a linux system they are not even using the same stack for the stack frame and returning requires jumping back to a system function to restore the original user stack.
Unless the OS is specifically designed to handle exceptions then this is not going to work.
The rule of thumb for signal handlers is to do as little as possible in a signal handler. Set a global flag that can be detected by your normal code then check that flag periodically in your normal code to see when the signal has happened.
Good Morning!
Edit: This is not a duplicate as it specifically pertains to SEH, not code-level thrown exceptions.
I'm using SEH to catch hardware errors thrown by some unreliable libraries. I'd like to get more information from the catchall exception. The following code simulates what I'm doing. As you can see, I'm using boost's current_exception_diagnostic_information, but it just spits out "No diagnostic information available." - not terribly helpful.
Is it possible to, at a minimum, get the termination code that would have been returned had the exception not have been caught? (In this case 0xC0000005, Access Violation)
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/exception/diagnostic_information.hpp>
int slowTask()
{
//simulates a dodgy bit of code
int* a = new int[5]();
a[9000009] = 3;
std::cout << a[9000009];
return 0;
}
int main()
{
{
try
{
std::future<int> result(std::async(slowTask));
std::cout<< result.get();
}
catch(...)
{
std::cout << "Something has gone dreadfully wrong:"
<< boost::current_exception_diagnostic_information()
<< ":That's all I know."
<< std::endl;
}
}
return 0;
}
Using catch (...) you get no information at all, whether about C++ exceptions or SEH. So global handlers are not the solution.
However, you can get SEH information through a C++ exception handler (catch), as long as you also use set_se_translator(). The type of the catch should match the C++ exception built and thrown inside your translator.
The function that you write must be a native-compiled function (not compiled with /clr). It must take an unsigned integer and a pointer to a Win32 _EXCEPTION_POINTERS structure as arguments. The arguments are the return values of calls to the Win32 API GetExceptionCode and GetExceptionInformation functions, respectively.
Or you can use __try/__except, which are specific to SEH. They can be used inside C++ just fine, including in programs where C++ exceptions are used, as long as you don't have SEH __try and C++ try in the same function (to trap both types of exceptions in the same block, use a helper function).
gcc (GCC) 4.5.3
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.5.50.20130309-cvs (cygwin-special)
Netbeans 7.3
I have some trouble catching a SIGSEGV, Segment Fault Exception, in my code. A try-catch does not catch it (code below). Is this a non-catchable exception? Is there any way to catch it? (And of Course) What have I done wrong?
art
string SlipStringOp::dump(const SlipCell& X) const {
stringstream pretty;
PTR ptr = *getPtr(X);
pretty << "[string ] " << dumpLink(X) << " = "
<< setfill('0') << setw(8) << hex << ptr
<< " -> ";
try {
pretty << ptr->dump();
} catch(exception& e) {
pretty << e.what();
postError(SlipErr::E3023, "SlipStringOp::dump", "", "Deletion of cell deleted the pointer.");
} catch(...) {
postError(SlipErr::E3023, "SlipStringOp::dump", "", "Deletion of cell deleted the pointer.");
}
return pretty.str();
}; // string SlipStringOp::dump(const SlipCell& X) const
SIGSEGV is not an exception; it's a signal. Accessing an invalid memory address is known as a segmentation fault. When your program does this, the operating system will send your process the SIGSEGV signal. The default handler for this signal will immediately terminate the process.
You can intercept a signal, but this is not a signal you should be handling yourself. If your program is causing a segmentation fault, it has a bug, no doubt about it.
If you've isolated the segmentation fault to the pretty << ptr->dump(); line, I would guess that the problem is probably that ptr isn't pointing to a valid object. Alternatively, the dump function is doing something bad.
Do not attempt to fix this by handling the signal. Do fix this by making sure your program doesn't cause a segmentation fault.
There are two questions here. Firstly, why are you getting a SIGSEGV? There probably isn't enough code here for us to tell, but is your call to ptr->dump() calling the same function recursively? IF so, you have infinite recursion, and that is causing the seg fault.
Second question is how you trap the signal, and that's been answered by previous responders.
You throw an exception with a throw expression. You catch an exception in a catch clause.
You raise a signal by calling raise. You handle a signal by installing a handler before the exception is raised.
Any other actions and interactions are system-specific (i.e., not portable).
I'm using the GLUTesselator and every once in a while EndContour() fails so I did this:
try
{
PolygonTesselator.End_Contour();
}
catch (int e)
{
renderShape = false;
return;
}
Why would it still crash, it should perform the catch code right?
How could I fix this?
Thanks
Does PolygonTesselator.End_Contour(); crash or throws it an exception?
Note that a real "crash" (segfault, illegal instruction etc.) does not throw an exception in the sense of C++.
In these cases, the CPU triggers an interrupt - this is also sometimes called exception, but has nothing to do with an C++ exception.
In C++ you are running on a real CPU - and not in a virtual machine like in Java where every memory violation results in language execption like NullPointerException or ArrayOutOfBoundsException.
In C/C++ a CPU exception / interrupt / trap is handled by the operating system and forwarded to the process as "signal". You can trap the signal but usually this does not help for crashes (SIGSEG, SIGILL, SIGFPU, etcc.).
You're getting SEH exception, or Structured Exception Handling. These exceptions are thrown by Windows under an entirely different system since SEH predates C++, and can't be caught by a standard C++ catch block (MSVC does however provide SEH catching).
Alternatively, if you're on Unix, the kernel doesn't use C++ exceptions either. It uses signals. I don't pretend to understand signals, since I don't develop for Unix, but I'm very sure they're not C++ exceptions.
You've violated a hardware rule that you can't de-reference a NULL pointer. You'll get an OS-level error, by exception or signal. You can't catch these things in a C++ catch block just like that.
Edit: If you're using MSVC on Windows and have a recent compiler, you CAN enable /EHa, which allows you to catch Structured Exceptions as well as C++ exceptions. I wrote this code that functions as shown:
int main() {
std::string string = "lolcakes";
try {
Something s;
int i, j;
i = 0; j = 1;
std::string input;
std::cin >> input;
if (input == "Structured")
int x = j / i;
else
throw std::runtime_error("Amagad hai!");
}
catch(std::runtime_error& error) {
std::cout << "Caught a C++ exception!" << std::endl;
}
catch(...) {
std::cout << "Caught a structured exception!" << std::endl;
}
return main();
}
Structured Exceptions include Access Violations, your particular error.
Two things :
If you are under VC 6 or more recent, use __try{}__except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER){} instead. It will catch the SE. try/catch only catches C++ exceptions
I've had a hard time with GLU, so I can tell you this : if you can set the normal, SET IT. But otherwise, it's true that it's quite solid.
Since all you want to do when the exception arrives is set 'renderShape' to false I'd recomment the following code:
try
{
PolygonTesselator.End_Contour();
}
catch (...) // takes any type of exception
{
renderShape = false;
return;
}
That said of course if you really can't fix the source to the exception itself!!
Why would it still crash, it should
perform the catch code right? How
could I fix this?
Most likely because you are not actually catching what is being thrown. Are you sure that PolygonTesselator.End_Contour(); throws an int?
If your program fails with the message error reading from location 0x000000000, then it is not failing because of an exception, but because of a segfault. You can use the segvcatch utility to convert segfaults into catchable exceptions. Check out their examples.
As mentioned, this is an SEH Exception.
If you are using Visual Studio, you can configure your project to catch SEH exceptions in your try/catch block.
Project Properties > C/C++ > Code
Generation > Enable C++ Exceptions >
Yes with SEH Exceptions