When would I use uncaught_exception? - c++

What is a good use case for uncaught_exception?

Herb Sutter seems to give good advice here. He doesn't know of a good use for it and says that some cases where it appears to be useful don't really work.

Probably none

uncaught_exception can be used in destructors, to determine whether they are being executed in the context of an exception (where a throw will terminate the program). I don't disagree that the philosophy is slightly flawed, but it depends on your use of exceptions - if your exception is a recoverable error, it may be more convenient to just try to fix it rather than let another part of the code attempt to deal with it as you normally would.
It is also useful if you have code requiring an active exception (this is rare, but occasionally you have an exception control library that will use throw; to get the current exception, but that will cause a termination if there is none, so uncaught_exception can be used to determine whether that will abort (and if so, possibly throw an exception!). An example is the new exception facilities, which are also a part of boost.

Related

What are the possible error handling strategies using Exceptions in C++, and what are their consequences and implications?

I would like your help in understanding what are the possible approaches to using/disabling exceptions in C++.
My question is not about what is the best choice but just about what are the possible options and what these options imply.
Currently, the options I can think of are:
Compiling with -fno-exceptions and giving up most std containers (possibly defining internal containers which do not throw, such as suggested in SpiderMonkey Coding_Style)
Just avoiding to throw and catch in own code, but still using std containers which may throw exceptions. Being happy with the fact that, in the case of exceptions, the program may terminate without stack unwinding, and that even RAII handled external resources may be left hanging. (This seems to be Google C++ approach according to answers to this SO question)
No using exceptions but wrapping all in a catch all std::exception try block just to make sure stack is unwound and RAII handles to external resources are released before program is terminated, as for this Cert C++ rule
As above, but also throwing exceptions which will ultimately result in program termination.
Also using catched exceptions and recovering from exceptions.
I would like to know if my understanding of options is correct, and what I might be missing out or understanding wrong.
I would also like to know whether constraints on granting basic exception safety make sense for options 2-4 (where exceptions always ultimately lead to program termination) or if/how exception safety requirement can be relaxed/restricted to specific cases (e.g. handling external resources, files).
Update
Strictly speaking, when you want to disable exceptions only compiling with no exception support is true way to go, so Option 1. Because when you want to disable exceptions you should also not use or even handle them. Raising an exception would terminate or go to a hard faulty on most implementations instantly, and only by this you would avoid overhead implications like space or performance overhead even how small (see below) they are.
However if you just want to know which paradigms about exception usage are out there, your options are almost right, with the general idea you haven't mentioned of keeping exceptions exceptional and doing things that are likely or even just could throw, at program startup.
And even more in general, in comes to error handling in general: Exceptions are there to handle errors which you come across at runtime and if done correctly errors you can ONLY detect at runtime. You can avoid exceptions by simply making sure to resolve all problems you can detect before runtime, like proper coding and review (code time), using strict types and checks (templates , compile time), and rechecking them again (static analyser).
Update 2
If you understand you wrong about caring about exception safety I would say:
Basically at first it depends whenever you enable exceptions in general: If they are disabled you can't and shouldn't care about exception safety since there are none (or if they try to come into existence, you will terminate/crash/hardfault anyway).
If you enable exceptions but don't use them in your code, like in case 2, 4 and 3, no problem you want to terminate anyway, so missing cleanup code is not relevant (and the stuff in 3. gets still run in any case). But then should make it clear to everybody that you don't want to use them, so they won't try to recover from exceptions.
And if you use them in your code, you should care about exception safety in the way, that when an exception gets thrown, you clean up after your self too, and then its up the main handler or future code changes, when ever you still terminate or can recover. Not cleaning up but still using exception wouldn't make sense. Then you can just stick to option 1.
This should be to my knowledge exhaustive. For more information see below.
Recommendation
I recommend option 4. and I tell you why:
Exceptions are a very misunderstood and misused pattern. They are misused for program flow like the languages Java does in a excessive. They are often forbidden in embedded or safety code because of their nature that is hard to tell which handler will catch it, if there is one, and how long this will take, for which the C++ std just says basically "implementation magic".
Background
However in my reasoning the hate for exceptions is basically a big XY problem:
When people are complaining that their recovery is broken and hard to tell, then the usual problem is that the don't see you can't or should do much about the most exceptions, that's what they are for. However things like a timeout or a closed tcp connection are hardly non normal, but many people use exceptions for that, that would be wrong of course. But if your whole OS tells you that there is no network adapter or no more memory what could you do? The only thing you probably want is trying to log the reason somewhere and this should be done in one try/catch around the main block.
The same is for safety/real-time programs: For the example of running out of memory, when that happens you are **** anyway, the strategy then is to do this stuff at an unsafe initialisation time, in which exceptions are no problem too.
When using containers with throwing members its a similar scenario, what would you be able to do when you would get their error code instead? Not much, thats the reason why you would make sure at code time that there is no reason for errors, like making sure that an element is really in there, or reserving capacity for your vectors.
This has the nice benefit of cleaner code, not forgetting to check for errors and no performance penalty, at least using the common C++ implementations like gcc etc.
The reason of 3. is debatable, you could do this in my opinion too, but then my question is: What do you have to do in the destructors which wouldn't cleanup your operating system anyway? The OS would cleanup memory, sockets etc.. If have a freestanding scenario, the question remains, whenever different: You plan to halt because your UART broke for example, what would you like to do before halting? And why can't you do it in the catch block before rethrow?
To sum up
Has the problem of not using any throwing code, and still be left with the problem of how to handle rare error codes. (Thats why so many C programmers still use goto or long jumps)
Not viable IMHO, worst of both
as mentioned ok, but what do you need to do in your static DTors, what you even un-normal termination wouldn't do?
My favourite
Only if you really have rare conditions that you are actual able to recover from
What I mean as a general advice: Raising and exception should mean that something happened that should never happen in normal operation, but happened due to a unforeseeable fault, like hardware fault, detached cables, non found shared libraries, a programming fault you have done, like trying to .at() at an index not in the container, which you could have known of, but the container can not. Then it is only logical that throw an exception should almost every time lead to program termination/hard fault
As a consequence of compiling with exception support, is that for example for a freestanding ARM program, your program size will increase by 27kB, probably none for hosted (Linux/Windows etc.), and 2kB RAM for the freestanding case (see C++ exception handler on gnu arm cortex m4 with freertos )
However you are paying no performance penalty for using exceptions when using common compilers like clang or gcc, when you code runs normal i.e. when your branches/ifs which would trow an exception, are not triggered.
As a reference i.e. proof to my statements I refer to ISO/IEC TR 18015:2006 Technical Report on C++ Performance, with this little excerpt from 7.2.2.3:
Enable exception handling for real-time critical programs only if
exceptions are actually used. A complete analysis must always include
the throwing of an exception, and this analysis will always be
implementation dependent. On the other hand, the requirement to act
within a deterministic time might loosen in the case of an exception
(e.g. there is no need to handle any more input from a device when a
connection has broken down). An overview of alternatives for exception
handling is given in §5.4. But as shown there, all options have their
run-time costs, and throwing exceptions might still be the best way to
deal with exceptional cases. As long as no exceptions are thrown a
long way (i.e. there are only a few nested function calls between the
throw-expression and the handler), it might even reduce run-time
costs.

std::future no_state exception vs assertion

The way I understand things, asserts should be used to check for programming errors and document conditions that should never happen, and exceptions should be used for runtime errors beyond the programmer's control (for example, getting a key_not_found response from a database)
So then why is std::future_errc::no_state a thing? An exception with that value can only be thrown when a future is accessed that does not have valid state. Which is something the programmer can control. Why not just encourage implementations to abort from a failed assertion or abort when this happens? Is there a situation where a user might be able to recover from a no state exception?
For example if they return a future that has not been fetched from a call to std::promise::get_future() then it will not have any valid state. Or calling get() on a future twice.
assertions are mostly a debugging/while-you-are-developing feature. They are usually left out when compiling release versions of code. So, while they are nice to have and can document invariants and other stuff while you develop the code (and help you catch bugs), you cannot depend on them being enabled always.
On the other hand, std::future_errc::no_state is not just a debug thing and will always be there (unless of course you are one of those people who build with exceptions (and rtti) disabled - but in that case I have nothing to offer and no sympathy).

Call-stack for exceptions in C++

Today, in my C++ multi-platform code, I have a try-catch around every function. In every catch block I add the current function's name to the exception and throw it again, so that in the upmost catch block (where I finally print the exception's details) I have the complete call stack, which helps me to trace the exception's cause.
Is it a good practice, or are there better ways to get the call stack for the exception?
What you are doing is not good practice. Here's why:
1. It's unnecessary.
If you compile your project in debug mode so that debugging information gets generated, you can easily get backtraces for exception handling in a debugger such as GDB.
2. It's cumbersome.
This is something you have to remember to add to each and every function. If you happen to miss a function, that could cause a great deal of confusion, especially if that were the function that caused the exception. And anyone looking at your code would have to realize what you are doing. Also, I bet you used something like __FUNC__ or __FUNCTION__ or __PRETTY_FUNCTION__, which sadly to say are all non-standard (there is no standard way in C++ to get the name of the function).
3. It's slow.
Exception propagation in C++ is already fairly slow, and adding this logic will only make the codepath slower. This is not an issue if you are using macros to catch and rethrow, where you can easily elide the catch and rethrow in release versions of your code. Otherwise, performance could be a problem.
Good practice
While it may not be good practice to catch and rethrow in each and every function to build up a stack trace, it is good practice to attach the file name, line number, and function name at which the exception was originally thrown. If you use boost::exception with BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION, you will get this behavior for free. It's also good to attach explanatory information to your exception that will assist in debugging and handling the exception. That said, all of this should occur at the time the exception is constructed; once it is constructed, it should be allowed to propagate to its handler... you shouldn't repeatedly catch and rethrow more than stricly necessary. If you need to catch and rethrow in a particular function to attach some crucial information, that's fine, but catching all exceptions in every function and for the purposes of attaching already available information is just too much.
No, it is deeply horrible, and I don't see why you need a call stack in the exception itself - I find the exception reason, the line number and the filename of the code where the initial exception occurred quite sufficient.
Having said that, if you really must have a stack trace, the thing to do is to generate the call stack info ONCE at the exception throw site. There is no single portable way of doing this, but using something like http://stacktrace.sourceforge.net/ combined with and a similar library for VC++ should not be too difficult.
One solution which may be more graceful is to build a Tracer macro/class. So at the top of each function, you write something like:
TRACE()
and the macro looks something like:
Tracer t(__FUNCTION__);
and the class Tracer adds the function name to a global stack on construction, and removes itself upon destruction. Then that stack is always available to logging or debugging, maintenance is much simpler (one line), and it doesn't incur exception overhead.
Examples of implementations include things like http://www.drdobbs.com/184405270, http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/cmtrace.aspx, and http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/v-s/debug/tracing/article.php/c4429. Also Linux functions like this http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6391 can do it more natively, as described by this Stack Overflow question: How to generate a stacktrace when my gcc C++ app crashes. ACE's ACE_Stack_Trace may be worth looking at too.
Regardless, the exception-handling method is crude, inflexible, and computationally expensive. Class-construction/macro solutions are much faster and can be compiled out for release builds if desired.
The answer to all your problems is a good debugger, usually http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/ on linux or Visual Studio on Windows. They can give you stack traces on demand at any point in the program.
Your current method is a real performance and maintenance headache. Debuggers are invented to accomplish your goal, but without the overhead.
There's a nice little project that gives a pretty stack trace:
https://github.com/bombela/backward-cpp
Look at this SO Question. This might be close to what you're looking for. It isn't cross-platform but the answer gives solutions for gcc and Visual Studio.
One more project for stack-trace support: ex_diag. There are no macros, cross-platform is present, no huge code needs, tool is fast, clear and easy in use.
Here you need only wrap objects, which are need to trace, and they will be traced if exception occurs.
Linking with the libcsdbg library (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/18959030/364818 for original answer) looks like the cleanest way of getting a stack trace without modifying your source code or 3rd party source code (ie STL).
This uses the compiler to instrument the actual stack collection, which is really want you want to do.
I haven't used it and it is GPL tainted, but it looks like the right idea.
While quite a few counter-arguments have been made in the answers here, I want to note that since this question was asked, with C++11, methods have been added which allow you to get nice backtraces in a cross-platform way and without the need for a debugger or cumbersome logging:
Use std::nested_exception and std::throw_with_nested
It is described on StackOverflow here and here, how you can get a backtrace on your exceptions inside your code by simply writing a proper exception handler which will rethrow nested exceptions.
It will, however, require that you insert try/catch statements at the functions you wish to trace.
Since you can do this with any derived exception class, you can add a lot of information to such a backtrace!
You may also take a look at my MWE on GitHub or my "trace" library, where a backtrace would look something like this:
Library API: Exception caught in function 'api_function'
Backtrace:
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:17 : library_function failed
~/Git/mwe-cpp-exception/src/detail/Library.cpp:13 : could not open file "nonexistent.txt"
An exception that isn't handled is left for the calling function to handle. That continues until the exception is handled. This happens with or without try/catch around a function call. In other words, if a function is called that isn't in a try block, an exception that happens in that function will automatically be passed up to call stack. So, all you need to do is put the top-most function in a try block and handle the exception "..." in the catch block. That exception will catch all exceptions. So, your top-most function will look something like
int main()
{
try
{
top_most_func()
}
catch(...)
{
// handle all exceptions here
}
}
If you want to have specific code blocks for certain exceptions, you can do that too. Just make sure those occur before the "..." exception catch block.

Is Ogre's use of Exceptions a good way of using them?

I've managed to get through my C++ game programming career so far virtually never touching exceptions but recently I've been working on a project with the Ogre engine and I'm trying to learn properly. I've found a lot of good questions and answers here on the general usage of C++ exceptions but I'd like to get some outside opinions from here on whether Ogre's usage is good and how best to work with them.
To start with, quoting from Ogre's documentation of it's own Exception class:
OGRE never uses return values to indicate errors. Instead, if an error occurs, an exception is thrown, and this is the object that encapsulates the detail of the problem. The application using OGRE should always ensure that the exceptions are caught, so all OGRE engine functions should occur within a try{} catch(Ogre::Exception& e) {} block.
Really? Every single Ogre function could throw an exception and be wrapped in a try/catch block? At present this is handled in our usage of it by a try/catch in main that will show a message box with the exception description before exiting. This can be a bit awkward for debugging though as you don't get a stack trace, just the function that threw the error - more important is the function from our code that called the Ogre function. If it was an assert in Ogre code then it would go straight to the code in the debugger and I'd be able to find out what's going on much easier - I don't know if I'm missing something that would allow me to debug exceptions already?
I'm starting to add a few more try/catch blocks in our code now, generally thinking about whether it matters if the Ogre function throws an exception. If it's something that will stop everything working then let the main try/catch handle it and exit the program. If it's not of great importance then catch it just after the function call and let the program continue. One recent example of this was building up a vector of the vertex/fragment program parameters for materials applied to an entity - if a material didn't have any parameters then it would throw an exception, which I caught and then ignored as it didn't need to add to my list of parameters. Does this seem like a reasonable way of dealing with things? Any specific advice for working with Ogre is much appreciated.
You don't need to wrap every last call to Ogre in try { ... } catch. You do it wherever you can meaningfully deal with the exception. This may be at the individual call site in some cases, or it could be in a high-level loop of some sort. If you can't deal with it meaningfully anywhere, don't catch it at all; let the debugger take over.
In particular, you shouldn't catch exceptions in main() for precisely the reason you cite (at least, not during development; you should in production).
I don't know anything about Ogre, I'm afraid, but the general rule with exception handling is that you catch the exception as far as possible from the throw site, but no further. However, this is only possible if the code that throws the exception uses RAII to look after allocated resources. If the code uses dynamic allocation to plain pointers, or other forms of manual resource management, then you need try-blocks at the call site. If this is the case, I'd say use of exceptions is a bad idea.
You seem to be unaware of how to debug exceptions.
Either
Bring up the VS Debug/Exceptions
dialog and tick the C++ Exceptions
box. This will give you an
opportunity (a dialog appears) to debug when an
exception is thrown.
or
If you've built Ogre source, set a
breakpoint in the Ogre::Exception
constructor and when it attempts to throw one you'll break with
a call stack where the next level up is the throw site.

about c++ exceptions. func() throw()

i am reading this page http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/exceptions.html
it says if i write function() throw(); no exceptions can be thrown in that function. I tried in msvc 2005 writing throw(), throw(int), throw() and nothing at all. each had the exact same results. Nothing. I threw int, char*, another type and it was all caught the same way. It looks like throw doesnt affect it at all. What does function() throw() actually do?
See this article for details on C++ exception specifications and Microsoft's implementation:
Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1 ignores exception specifications unless they are empty. Empty exception specifications are equivalent to __declspec(nothrow), and they can help the compiler to reduce code size.
[...] If it sees an empty exception specification, it will assume you know what you are doing and optimize away the mechanics for dealing with exceptions. If your function throws anyway - well, shame on you. Use this feature only if you are 100% positive your function does not throw and never will.
What you're finding is that that version of VC++ didn't enforce specification exceptions. I believe that was documented as a variance from the standard.
However, exception specifications are usually not a good idea. If a program violates them in a standards-conforming implementation (which the VC++ from VS 2005 was not in this case), the system is supposed to catch it. This means that the specification is not a compiler optimization hint, but rather forces the compiler to go to extra lengths, and sometimes produce suboptimal code.
See the Boost rationale for reasons why the highly regarded Boost project does not use exception specifications. This is Boost, which is something of the poster child for doing weird and useful things with advanced parts of the language.
Quoting from A Pragmatic Look at Exception Specifications:
(Mis)understandings
The second issue has to do with
knowing what you’re getting. As many
notable persons, including the authors
of the Boost exception specification
rationale, have put it,
programmers tend to use exception
specifications as though they behaved
the way the programmer would like,
instead of the way they actually do
behave.
Here’s what many people think that
exception specifications do:
Guarantee that functions will only throw listed exceptions (possibly
none).
Enable compiler optimizations based on the knowledge that only listed
exceptions (possibly none) will be
thrown.
The above expectations are, again,
deceptively close to being correct.
See the link for the full details.
Throwing an exception is not enough, you need a try {} catch() block to catch exceptions. If you don't catch exceptions, std::terminate() is called and your program exits abruptly. Take some time out and have go at this.
throw specifications are designed for two purposes:
To serve as a contract between interface implemented and interface user - you state which exceptions can be throwned from your method, some people consider it part of an interface. (contract) Ala checked exceptions in Java.
As a way to signal the compiler that it can apply certain optimizations in case no exceptions can be thrown from a method/procedure (setting up exception handling costs something)
Throwing an exception not specified in throw() clause is a mistake, however at no point is the implementation required to verify it for you. In fact it's not even possible to verify, as it includes all the possible exceptions from subroutines your subroutine calls. (possibly from other modules) It is not even possible within a single module, as is easily reduced to a halting problem :)