Skip to main content

Use of std::bad_exception

std::bad_exception is a useful device to handle unexpected exceptions in a C++ program , which works in conjunction with unexpected_handler. unexpected_handler and terminate_handler are a traditional way of dealing with unknown exceptions. std::set_unexpected () and std::set_terminate () functions let us register custom handlers instead of standard handlers, which usually abort the program. More information can be found here.

Assuming g++ 4.0.2 complies with the standard in this area, I verified that if function f() throws an exception that is not listed in its exception specification list, our custom function pointed to by the unexpected_handler is invoked if we have set one. If our custom handler rethrows whatever unknown exception caused the unexpected() to be invoked, following things happen.

* If the exception specification of f() included the class std::bad_exception, unexpected() will throw an object of type std::bad_exception, and the C++ run time will search for another handler at the call of f(). So basically, you have an opportunity to translate the unknown exception into a std::bad_exception from within your custom handler by simply rethrowing. This is useful because now you can catch std::bad_exception and can print meaningful diagnostic message. I also saw that uncaught_exception() returns false.

* If the exception specification of f() did not include the class std::bad_exception, the function terminate() is called. You can of course set a terminate handler but you have to terminate the program from this point onwards because C++ runtime will terminate it anyways!

A simple program can make this a lot clear.


void my_unexpected ()
{
if (!std::uncaught_exception())
std::cerr << "my_unexpected called\n";
throw;
}
void my_terminate ()
{
std::cerr << "my_terminate called\n";
}
void func ()
{
std::cerr << "func called\n";
}
void g () throw (std::bad_exception, int)
{
throw 1.0; // throws double
}

int main (void)
{
std::set_unexpected (my_unexpected);
std::set_terminate (my_terminate);
atexit (func);
try {
g();
}
catch (int) {
std::cerr << "caught int\n";
}
catch (std::bad_exception e) {
std::cerr << "bad_exception \n";
}
return 0;
}


Output:

my_unexpected called
bad_exception
func called

Comments

Anonymous said…
In regards to exception specifications, I like the Morals from Herb Sutter's article: http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill22.htm

Moral #1 Never write an exception specification
Moral #2: Except possibly an empty one, but if I were you I’d avoid even that.

Ivan
Anonymous said…
This code doesn't work as expected on VS2005.
Sumant said…
That's right, but the reason is lack of proper support in Visual Studio for exception specification part of the C++ standard. Please see: set_unexpected (exception) in MSDN library.
xander345 said…
if you like c++ you can compile it online here: http://codecompiler.info/

32, 64 - windows & Linux - and more programming languages

Popular Content

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together.

It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array?

int native[3][4];
std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr;

No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is:

std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr;

That's quite annoying for two r…

Inheritance vs std::variant

C++17 added std::variant and std::visit in its repertoire. They are worth a close examination. I've been wondering about whether they are always better than inheritance for modeling sum-types (fancy name for discriminated unions) and if not, under what circumstances they are not. We'll compare the two approaches in this blog post. So here it goes.

Inheritancestd::variantNeed not know all the derived types upfront (open-world assumption)Must know all the cases upfront (closed-world assumption)Dynamic Allocation (usually)No dynamic allocationIntrusive (must inherit from the base class)Non-intrusive (third-party classes can participate)Reference semantics (think how you copy a vector of pointers to base class?)Value semantics (copying is trivial)Algorithm scattered into classesAlgorithm in one placeLanguage supported (Clear errors if pure-virtual is not implemented)Library supported (poor error messages)Creates a first-class abstractionIt’s just a containerKeeps fluent interfaces…

Covariance and Contravariance in C++ Standard Library

Covariance and Contravariance are concepts that come up often as you go deeper into generic programming. While designing a language that supports parametric polymorphism (e.g., templates in C++, generics in Java, C#), the language designer has a choice between Invariance, Covariance, and Contravariance when dealing with generic types. C++'s choice is "invariance". Let's look at an example.
struct Vehicle {}; struct Car : Vehicle {}; std::vector<Vehicle *> vehicles; std::vector<Car *> cars; vehicles = cars; // Does not compile The above program does not compile because C++ templates are invariant. Of course, each time a C++ template is instantiated, the compiler creates a brand new type that uniquely represents that instantiation. Any other type to the same template creates another unique type that has nothing to do with the earlier one. Any two unrelated user-defined types in C++ can't be assigned to each-other by default. You have to provide a c…