CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++exception
user31157
user31157

Reputation:

Using only std::exception in exception specification

It seems it is general accepted that exception specifications are not helping as much as one thinks. But I wonder if a specification which only uses std::exception might be a good compromise:

void someFunction()
    throw ( std::exception );

So, would this be better then not having any specification at all?

Update:

Regarding the Runtime-Overhead: Think of it like the usage of asserts. You are using asserts regardless of the runtime-overhead, right? I know you usually can disable them for a release-build, so maybe a better approach would be to wrap the exception specification in a macro so you can disable it for a release build. Something like:

#ifdef DEBUG
    #define THROW( exception ) throw ( exception )
#else
    #define THROW( exception )
#endif

void someFunction()
    THROW( std::exception );

Upvotes: 3

Views: 2809

Answers (4)

Paolo Tedesco
Paolo Tedesco

Reputation: 57172

I tipically would do this:

void someFunction() /* throw (std::exception) */;

The only effect of the throw statement in the function declaration is to modify its signature: a pointer to "void x()" and a pointer to "void x() throw y" are two different types.
In this way you are still documenting that the function might throw something, and you are losing nothing since the c++ compiler does not enforce any constraint anyway.

Upvotes: 1

Stack Overflow is garbage
Stack Overflow is garbage

Reputation: 247899

Exception specifications are essentially useless. Martin York already linked to Herb Sutter's post about them, but in short, you run up against the following problems:

  1. They're ignored by MSVC, and
  2. Their effect is nothing like in Java. The specifications are checked at runtime, causing a performance hit, witout giving you the compile-time validation you get in Java. All you're saying is "Insert extra code, such that when an exception is thrown, its type is inspected, and then either throw it as normal, or call unexpected() instead.

So all you're doing is making it harder to catch the exceptions that may be thrown, while at the same time slowing down your program. There really isn't much point.

Upvotes: 4

James Hopkin
James Hopkin

Reputation: 13973

On a conforming compiler, adding a non-empty exception specification generates the equivalent of a try/catch block around the function. Although it's possible to implement this in a way that has no run-time overhead, on some current compilers you do get an overhead.

So there may be a cost, and all you gain is that, if someFunction or something it calls raises on non-std::exception-derived exception, std::unexpected is called, rather than the unhandled exception mechanism.

So I guess my answer's 'No' :-)

Upvotes: 2

Loki Astari
Loki Astari

Reputation: 264331

Yes but what do you expect to happen when something that is not derived from std::exception is thrown?

Would you like the application to terminate.
No stack unwinding not destructors being called to tidy up the code, just the application exiting.

The difference between Java and C++ exception specifications is that Java checks the specifications at compile-time. C++ on the other hand does all the checking at run-time. So by the time your specifications have been violated it is already too late.

Even in Java code there is a movement to stop to using them. What tends to happen there is at the start of the project the exception specifications are tightly defined. But as the code grows and becomes more complex the specifications are diluted to a more and more general form. This is because as the code grows more exceptions can be thrown and if they can not be handled immediately you need to modify the exception specifications of the whole call chain back to the point where they can be handled. (Note I am not a Java Expert but I do play in a mature Java code base).

The only exception specification (I think) that is worth much is the no throw specification. This does have a valid application (but you have to use it with the try/catch(...) block).

Also read Herb Sutters article:

And this thread on SO: Should I use an exception specifier in C++?

Upvotes: 8

Related Questions