In this case, I have want to perform some actions based on the exception thrown and then re-throw the exception. Is this recommended - My aim is to do some work based on the exception thrown and rethrow it and have the application crash and generate dump that have the call stack in the exception.
class Foo
{
public:
void HandleException(const std::exception& ex)
{
// Log, report some metrics
throw;
}
void Work(//Some inputs)
{
try
{
// trying doing some work
}
catch (const std::exception& ex)
{
// This is really an exceptional situation, and the exception should be thrown which
// cause the exe to abort and create dump.
// Intention is to preserve call stack and have it in dump.
HandleException(ex);
}
}
}
Let me add another note to the question: When I have HandleException as a lambda function, throw in the lambda causes exception. Do I need to capture some state and how do I do that ?
When you catch an exception you have two options:
Achieve the original goal (contract) in some way, e.g. by retrying.
Report failure by throwing.
Rethrowing the original exception is one way to implement the second bullet point.
Yes that is valid. BUT it is also dangerous.
If you call throw; with no parameters and there is no exception currently in flight this will result in a call to std::terminate(). The problem with your current code is that anybody can call the function even when they are not in a catch block (which would result in termination).
So you may want to validate that an exception is propogating:
void HandleException(const std::exception& ex)
{
// Log, report some metrics
if (std::uncaught_exception()) {
throw;
}
// Maybe put an else here.
}
Also worth reading: GotW #47: Uncaught Exceptions
Related
This question already has answers here:
Nested try...catch inside C++ exception handler?
(2 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
Consider the following C++ code:
class MyException {};
void someFunction()
{
try
{
/// ... code that may throw
}
catch(std::exception& e )
{
throw MyException();
}
}
Question
Is the exception e absorbed at the beginnging of the catch block or at the end of the catch block?
In the second case throwing the new exception would result in having two exceptions in flight, what is not what I want. I want to absorb the std::exception and start one of my own type.
No. That's how one should do it. The throw myException() can only occur if the first exception has been caught and hence is no longer 'in flight'.
This design pattern is quite common to 'translate' error messages coming from another library that your code is using to an error that the user of your code can better relate to.
Alternatively, if you want to do more than merely throw (say you want to do some clearing up of resources -- though that should really be done via RAII, i.e. from destructors), then you can simply rethrow the original exception via
try
{
// ... code that may throw
}
catch(...) // catches anything
{
// ... code that runs before rethrowing
throw; // rethrows the original catch
}
just throw; statement is enough in catch block to rethrow same exception in higher context.
It throws SAME exception again. No new exception is generated. So no fight :)
In case you want to catch exception of type A and then throw exception of type B, then the way you did it is absolute correct.
In this case, old exception (type A) is caught(absorbed) and only new exception(type B) is thrown to higher context. So, again no fight :)
In C++, why would you want to rethrow an exception. Why not let the current catch block handle the exception. For what reasons would you rethrow an exception to another try/catch block?
An exception is thrown when a function cannot meet its contract (what it promises the caller it will do). When a function calls another function that throws an exception, there are four main approaches to how it might respond:
Catch the exception and handle it. This should only be done if the function is able to meet its contract despite the exception being thrown. If it catches the exception but fails to meet its contract, it is hiding a problem from the calling code.
Allow the exception to propagate. This should be done if the exception cannot be handled by this function (that is, the function is unable to meet its contract because the exception has been thrown), and if the exception exposes the appropriate information to the calling code.
Catch the exception, do some clean-up and/or add extra info, and rethrow it. This should be done if the exception cannot be handled by this function, but it needs to do some cleaning up before propagating it. It can also provide extra information to help with handling/debugging the exception (I often think of the programmer as the very last exception handler).
Catch the exception and throw a different exception (perhaps wrapping the original). This should be done if the exception cannot be handled by this function, but a different exception better expresses the problem to the calling code.
Why not let the current catch block handle the exception. For what reasons would you rethrow an exception to another try/catch block?
The idea behind exceptions is that you throw them at the error site and handle them down the stack, where you have enough information to handle the error.
Conversely, there are cases when you must do something in case of an error, but still don't know how to handle the error (this is the case when you rethrow).
Example:
void connect_and_notify(int connection_data)
{
try
{
create_network_connection(connection_data); // defined somewhere else
notify("connection open"); // same (notify event listeners)
}
catch(const std::runtime_error&)
{
notify("connection failed");
throw;
}
}
Client code:
void terminal_app_controller()
{
try
{
connect_and_notify(1);
}
catch(const std::runtime_error& err)
{
std::cerr << "Connection failed;\n";
exit(1); // this is usually bad bad code but whatever
}
}
void ongoing_server_controller()
{
bool connected = false;
int connection = 1;
while(!connected)
{
try
{
connect_and_notify(1);
connected = true;
}
catch(const std::runtime_error&)
{
connection++;
}
}
}
In the two usage scenarios, the error is handled differently (connect_and_notify has no way of knowing that, but still, on a failed connection it must notify listeners).
Each function has a different policy to handle the exception and this means different catch blocks.
I very much dislike anything like
catch (std::exception&) {
... // do some cleanup
throw;
}
RAII is the correct solution to that problem. Even:
catch (std::exception&) {
... // do some logging here
throw;
}
can be handled with RAII, although it is less intuitive.
BUT - where I have rethrown is any situation where 3rd-part (or vendor-supplied) code throws "generic" exceptions with state. For example, when logging telematics messages to a database, I know that I often receive duplicate copies of the same message. Each message has a unique ID - so a primary key violation in my DB is an "innocent" error that should be silently ignored.
Unfortunately, the DB framework we use doesn't throw a specific exception for PK violations - so we need to catch the generic dbexception and check what its reason code is to decide what to do. Hence:
catch (db::exception& e) {
if (e.reason != db::exception::reason::pk_violation)
throw;
}
Also, piwi mentioned internal state. An example would be
for (;;) {
try {
...
}
catch (some_exception& e) {
if (retry_count > 3)
throw;
}
}
Remember: If you are going to rethrow, always catch by reference to avoid slicing the exception object. (You should usually catch by ref anyway, but it is even more important when rethrowing)
Q: Is it safe to throw and catch an exception on stack unwind, or does the application call terminate on the second throw?
minimal example:
void some_function()
{
try
{
// do stuff here that can throw
throw std::runtime_error("blah");
} catch(const std::exception& re)
{
try // this code could be in some function called from here
{
// do something with re here that throws a logical_error
throw std::logical_error("blah blah"); // does this call terminate?
} catch(const std::logical_error& le)
{
}
}
}
I got curious after reading this question.
Note: I know you can/should catch(...) in a destructor, but does it make sense in general to have a try/catch in a catch block - maybe in some function called on the exception (re in my example)?
That's not really during stack unwinding. Once a catch block is entered, the stack has already been unwound.
And yes, that code is legal. See this question: Nested try...catch inside C++ exception handler?
Pubby's answer best answers the scenario you're describing.
As an addendum, while a stack is unwinding, the only user code that's executed is destructors (and the code those destructors call).
If you do throw in a destructor during this scenario, the standard specifies that std::terminate() will be called.
In my project codding i have to use a try catch method to find the function execution status.
try
{
//sample code
//calling functions
function1();
function2();
//........
}
catch(//need to catch exception)
{
return failure;
}
My requirement is that i have to catch all the exceptions that thrown from the try block
i have two options here,
catch(...)
catch(std::exception)
I think the first one will catch all the exceptions. And the second one, std::exception is the base class for all other exception classes in my program
class MyException : public std::exception
{
// All the exceptions that i have use is derived from this class
}.
Which is better and more efficient.
Is the both method works same way. Help me and suggest any method
In this case, you'd work your way through the types which may be thrown in the following order:
catch (MyException& e) {
...
}
catch (std::exception& e) {
...
}
catch (...) {
...
}
This way, you can handle the specific errors/types first, and then fall back on the weak (or untyped) handlers when the preceding handlers do not match.
Which is better and more efficient.
The order I recommended is best for handling by type. IMO, efficiency is not a concern in this scenario because correctness takes precedence and hopefully exceptions are thrown only under exceptional circumstances.
Always keep your specification as focused as possible so that you catch those that you know could be thrown, and catch derived exceptions (more specialised) before base ones:
try
{
// Some stuff
}
catch (Derived& e)
{
// Deal with specifics of Derived
}
catch (Base& e)
{
// Deal with general case of Base
}
Never use catch(...) except at the very top of your program stack (and certainly not in libraries.) When you do this, you cannot be sure about what caused the exception and therefore you cannot necessarily rely on things that you normaly would (such as memory management etc.)
I would suggest you to catch the specified exceptions only and use the catch(...) only in the main function. In my opinion the better way to use the exceptions is to implement one exception per module so each class will throw the specific exception related with the module of the class also different exceptions may be handled with a different way so I believe that
catch(const ExceptionType1& e){
}catch(const ExceptionType2& e){
}
is the better solution, also some other developer just reading this code will see which kind of exceptions could be thrown and handled....
These days, I have been reading a lot the C++ F.A.Q and especially this page.
Reading through the section I discovered a "technique" that the author calls "exception dispatcher" that allows someone to group all his exception handling in one handy function:
void handleException()
{
try {
throw; // ?!
}
catch (MyException& e) {
//...code to handle MyException...
}
catch (YourException& e) {
//...code to handle YourException...
}
}
void f()
{
try {
//...something that might throw...
}
catch (...) {
handleException();
}
}
What bothers me is the single throw; statement: if you consider the given example then sure, it is obvious what it does: it rethrows the exception first caught in f() and deals with it again.
But what if I call handleException() on its own, directly, without doing it from a catch() clause ? Is there any specified behavior ?
Additionally for bonus points, is there any other "weird" (probably not the good word) use of throw that you know of ?
Thank you.
If you do a throw; on its own, and there isn't a current exception for it to rethrow, then the program ends abruptly. (More specifically, terminate() is called.)
Note that throw; is the only safe way to re-throw the current exception - it's not equivalent to
catch (exception const & e) { throw e; }
Yes, it specified behavior, it will call terminate;
15.1, para 8: If no exception is presently being handled, executing a
throw expression with no operand calls
terminate() (15.5.1).
That's so-called exception handler. It rethrows the "current exception" if any. If there's no exception currently being handled terminate() will be called.