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.

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

Unit Testing C++ Templates and Mock Injection Using Traits

Unit testing your template code comes up from time to time. (You test your templates, right?) Some templates are easy to test. No others. Sometimes it's not clear how to about injecting mock code into the template code that's under test. I've seen several reasons why code injection becomes challenging. Here I've outlined some examples below with roughly increasing code injection difficulty. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor Template accepts a type argument. Makes a copy of the constructor argument or simply does not take one Template accepts a type argument and instantiates multiple interrelated templates without virtual functions Lets start with the easy ones. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor This one appears straight-forward because the unit test simply instantiates the template under test with a mock type. Some assertion might be tested in

Want speed? Use constexpr meta-programming!

It's official: C++11 has two meta-programming languages embedded in it! One is based on templates and other one using constexpr . Templates have been extensively used for meta-programming in C++03. C++11 now gives you one more option of writing compile-time meta-programs using constexpr . The capabilities differ, however. The meta-programming language that uses templates was discovered accidently and since then countless techniques have been developed. It is a pure functional language which allows you to manipulate compile-time integral literals and types but not floating point literals. Most people find the syntax of template meta-programming quite abominable because meta-functions must be implemented as structures and nested typedefs. Compile-time performance is also a pain point for this language feature. The generalized constant expressions (constexpr for short) feature allows C++11 compiler to peek into the implementation of a function (even classes) and perform optimization