Do you really write exception safe code

Question

Exception handling  EH  seems to be the current standard  and by searching the web  I can not find any novel ideas or methods that try to improve or replace it  well  some variations exist  but nothing novel    Though most people seem to ignore it or just accept it  EH has some huge drawbacks  exceptions are invisible to the code and it creates many  many possible exit points  Joel on software wrote an article about it  The comparison to goto fits perfect  it made me think again about EH   I try to avoid EH and just use return values  callbacks or whatever fits the purpose  But when you have to write reliable code  you just can t ignore EH these days  It starts with the new  which may throw an exception  instead of just returning 0  like in the old days   This makes about any line of C   code vulnerable to an exception  And then more places in the C   foundational code throw exceptions    std lib does it  and so on   This feels like walking on shaky grounds   So  now we are forced to take care about exceptions   But its hard  its really hard  You have to learn to write exception safe code  and even if you have some experience with it  it will still be required to double check any single line of code to be safe  Or you start to put try catch blocks everywhere  which clutters the code until it reaches a state of unreadability   EH replaced the old clean deterministical approach  return values     which had just a few but understandable and easily solveable drawbacks with an approach that creates many possible exit points in your code  and if you start writing code that catches exceptions  what you are forced to do at some point   then it even creates a multitude of paths through your code  code in the catch blocks  think about a server program where you need logging facilities other than std  cerr      EH has advantages  but that s not the point   My actual questions    Do you really write exception safe code  Are you sure your last  production ready  code is exception safe  Can you even be sure  that it is  Do you know and or actually use alternatives that work

User · Answer

It is not possible to write exception-safe code under the assumption that "any line can throw". The design of exception-safe code relies critically on certain contracts/guarantees that you are supposed to expect, observe, follow and implement in your code. It is absolutely necessary to have code that is guaranteed to never throw. There are other kinds of exception guarantees out there.

In other words, creating exception-safe code is to a large degree a matter of program design not just a matter of plain coding.

User · Answer

A lot  I would even say most  people do   What s really important about exceptions  is that if you don t write any handling code - the result is perfectly safe and well-behaved  Too eager to panic  but safe   You need to actively make mistakes in handlers to get something unsafe  and only catch        will compare to ignoring error code

User · Answer

I really like working with Eclipse and Java though  new to Java   because it throws errors in the editor if you are missing an EH handler   That makes things a LOT harder to forget to handle an exception     Plus  with the IDE tools  it adds the try   catch block or another catch block automatically

User · Answer

I try my darned best to write exception-safe code  yes   That means I take care to keep an eye on which lines can throw  Not everyone can  and it is critically important to keep that in mind  The key is really to think about  and design your code to satisfy  the exception guarantees defined in the standard   Can this operation be written to provide the strong exception guarantee  Do I have to settle for the basic one  Which lines may throw exceptions  and how can I ensure that if they do  they don t corrupt the object

User · Answer

EH is good  generally  But C   s implementation is not very friendly as it s really hard to tell how good your exception catching coverage is  Java for instance makes this easy  the compiler will tend to fail if you don t handle possible exceptions

User · Answer

Some of us prefer languages like Java which force us to declare all the exceptions thrown by methods  instead of making them invisible as in C   and C    When done properly  exceptions are superior to error return codes  if for no other reason than you don t have to propagate failures up the call chain manually   That being said  low-level API library programming should probably avoid exception handling  and stick to error return codes   It s been my experience that it s difficult to write clean exception handling code in C    I end up using new nothrow  a lot

User · Answer

Your question makes an assertion  that  quot Writing exception-safe code is very hard quot   I will answer your questions first  and then  answer the hidden question behind them  Answering questions  Do you really write exception safe code   Of course  I do  This is the reason Java lost a lot of its appeal to me as a C   programmer  lack of RAII semantics   but I am digressing  This is a C   question  It is  in fact  necessary when you need to work with STL or Boost code  For example  C   threads  boost  thread or std  thread  will throw an exception to exit gracefully   Are you sure your last  quot production ready quot  code is exception safe  Can you even be sure  that it is   Writing exception-safe code is like writing bug-free code  You can t be 100  sure your code is exception safe  But then  you strive for it  using well-known patterns  and avoiding well-known anti-patterns   Do you know and or actually use alternatives that work   There are no viable alternatives in C    i e  you ll need to revert back to C and avoid C   libraries  as well as external surprises like Windows SEH   Writing exception safe code To write exception safe code  you must know first what level of exception safety each instruction you write is  For example  a new can throw an exception  but assigning a built-in  e g  an int  or a pointer  won t fail  A swap will never fail  don t ever write a throwing swap   a std  list  push back can throw    Exception guarantee The first thing to understand is that you must be able to evaluate the exception guarantee offered by all of your functions   none  Your code should never offer that  This code will leak everything  and break down at the very first exception thrown  basic  This is the guarantee you must at the very least offer  that is  if an exception is thrown  no resources are leaked  and all objects are still whole strong  The processing will either succeed  or throw an exception  but if it throws  then the data will be in the same state as if the processing had not started at all  this gives a transactional power to C    nothrow nofail  The processing will succeed   Example of code The following code seems like correct C    but in truth  offers the  quot none quot  guarantee  and thus  it is not correct  void doSomething T  amp  t       if std  numeric limits lt int gt   max    gt  t integer      1    nothrow nofail       t integer    1                                   1    nothrow nofail    X   x   new X                       2  basic   can throw with new and X constructor    t list push back x                  3  strong   can throw    x- gt doSomethingThatCanThrow          4  basic   can throw    I write all my code with this kind of analysis in mind  The lowest guarantee offered is basic  but then  the ordering of each instruction makes the whole function  quot none quot   because if 3  throws  x will leak  The first thing to do would be to make the function  quot basic quot   that is putting x in a smart pointer until it is safely owned by the list  void doSomething T  amp  t       if std  numeric limits lt int gt   max    gt  t integer      1    nothrow nofail       t integer    1                                   1    nothrow nofail    std  auto ptr lt X gt  x new X            2   basic   can throw with new and X constructor    X   px   x get                      2   nothrow nofail    t list push back px                 3   strong   can throw    x release                           3   nothrow nofail    px- gt doSomethingThatCanThrow         4   basic   can throw    Now  our code offers a  quot basic quot  guarantee  Nothing will leak  and all objects will be in a correct state  But we could offer more  that is  the strong guarantee  This is where it can become costly  and this is why not all C   code is strong  Let s try it  void doSomething T  amp  t          we create  quot x quot     std  auto ptr lt X gt  x new X            1  basic   can throw with new and X constructor    X   px   x get                      2  nothrow nofail    px- gt doSomethingThatCanThrow         3  basic   can throw        we copy the original container to avoid changing it    T t2 t                              4  strong   can throw with T copy-constructor        we put  quot x quot  in the copied container    t2 list push back px                5  strong   can throw    x release                           6  nothrow nofail    if std  numeric limits lt int gt   max    gt  t2 integer      7    nothrow nofail       t2 integer    1                                   7    nothrow nofail        we swap both containers    t swap t2                           8  nothrow nofail    We re-ordered the operations  first creating and setting X to its right value  If any operation fails  then t is not modified  so  operation 1 to 3 can be considered  quot strong quot   If something throws  t is not modified  and X will not leak because it s owned by the smart pointer  Then  we create a copy t2 of t  and work on this copy from operation 4 to 7  If something throws  t2 is modified  but then  t is still the original  We still offer the strong guarantee  Then  we swap t and t2  Swap operations should be nothrow in C    so let s hope the swap you wrote for T is nothrow  if it isn t  rewrite it so it is nothrow   So  if we reach the end of the function  everything succeeded  No need of a return type  and t has its excepted value  If it fails  then t has still its original value  Now  offering the strong guarantee could be quite costly  so don t strive to offer the strong guarantee to all your code  but if you can do it without a cost  and C   inlining and other optimization could make all the code above costless   then do it  The function user will thank you for it  Conclusion It takes some habit to write exception-safe code  You ll need to evaluate the guarantee offered by each instruction you ll use  and then  you ll need to evaluate the guarantee offered by a list of instructions  Of course  the C   compiler won t back up the guarantee  in my code  I offer the guarantee as a  warning doxygen tag   which is kinda sad  but it should not stop you from trying to write exception-safe code  Normal failure vs  bug How can a programmer guarantee that a no-fail function will always succeed  After all  the function could have a bug  This is true  The exception guarantees are supposed to be offered by bug-free code  But then  in any language  calling a function supposes the function is bug-free  No sane code protects itself against the possibility of it having a bug  Write code the best you can  and then  offer the guarantee with the supposition it is bug-free  And if there is a bug  correct it  Exceptions are for exceptional processing failure  not for code bugs  Last words Now  the question is  quot Is this worth it   quot   Of course  it is  Having a  quot nothrow no-fail quot  function knowing that the function won t fail is a great boon  The same can be said for a  quot strong quot  function  which enables you to write code with transactional semantics  like databases  with commit rollback features  the commit being the normal execution of the code  throwing exceptions being the rollback  Then  the  quot basic quot  is the very least guarantee you should offer  C   is a very strong language there  with its scopes  enabling you to avoid any resource leaks  something a garbage collector would find it difficult to offer for the database  connection or file handles   So  as far as I see it  it is worth it  Edit 2010-01-29  About non-throwing swap nobar made a comment that I believe  is quite relevant  because it is part of  quot how do you write exception safe code quot     me  A swap will never fail  don t even write a throwing swap   nobar  This is a good recommendation for custom-written swap   functions  It should be noted  however  that std  swap   can fail based on the operations that it uses internally  the default std  swap will make copies and assignments  which  for some objects  can throw  Thus  the default swap could throw  either used for your classes or even for STL classes  As far as the C   standard is concerned  the swap operation for vector  deque  and list won t throw  whereas it could for map if the comparison functor can throw on copy construction  See The C   Programming Language  Special Edition  appendix E  E 4 3 Swap   Looking at Visual C   2008 implementation of the vector s swap  the vector s swap won t throw if the two vectors have the same allocator  i e   the normal case   but will make copies if they have different allocators  And thus  I assume it could throw in this last case  So  the original text still holds  Don t ever write a throwing swap  but nobar s comment must be remembered  Be sure the objects you re swapping have a non-throwing swap  Edit 2011-11-06  Interesting article Dave Abrahams  who gave us the basic strong nothrow guarantees  described in an article his experience about making the STL exception safe  http   www boost org community exception safety html Look at the 7th point  Automated testing for exception-safety   where he relies on automated unit testing to make sure every case is tested  I guess this part is an excellent answer to the question author s  quot Can you even be sure  that it is  quot   Edit 2013-05-31  Comment from dionadar  t integer    1  is without the guarantee that overflow will not happen NOT exception safe  and in fact may technically invoke UB   Signed overflow is UB  C  11 5 4  quot If during the evaluation of an expression  the result is not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values for its type  the behavior is undefined  quot   Note that unsigned integer do not overflow  but do their computations in an equivalence class modulo 2  bits   Dionadar is referring to the following line  which indeed has undefined behaviour     t integer    1                      1  nothrow nofail  The solution here is to verify if the integer is already at its max value  using std  numeric limits lt T gt   max    before doing the addition  My error would go in the  quot Normal failure vs  bug quot  section  that is  a bug  It doesn t invalidate the reasoning  and it does not mean the exception-safe code is useless because impossible to attain  You can t protect yourself against the computer switching off  or compiler bugs  or even your bugs  or other errors  You can t attain perfection  but you can try to get as near as possible  I corrected the code with Dionadar s comment in mind

User · Answer

Do you really write exception safe code    Well  I certainly intend to    Are you sure your last  production ready  code is exception safe    I m sure that my 24 7 servers built using exceptions run 24 7 and don t leak memory    Can you even be sure  that it is    It s very difficult to be sure that any code is correct  Typically  one can only go by results   Do you know and or actually use alternatives that work    No  Using exceptions is cleaner and easier than any of the alternatives I ve used over the last 30 years in programming

User · Answer

Some of us have been using exception for over 20 years  PL I has them  for example  The premise that they are a new and dangerous technology seems questionable to me

User · Answer

Do you really write exception safe code   There s no such thing  Exceptions are a paper shield to errors unless you have a managed environment  This applies to first three questions   Do you know and or actually use alternatives that work   Alternative to what  The problem here is people don t separate actual errors from normal program operation  If it s normal program operation  ie a file not found   it s not really error handling  If it s an actual error  there is no way to  handle  it or it s not an actual error  Your goal here is to find out what went wrong and either stop the spreadsheet and log an error  restart the driver to your toaster  or just pray that the jetfighter can continue flying even when it s software is buggy and hope for the best

User · Answer

First of all  as Neil stated   SEH is Microsoft s Structured Exception Handling   It is similar to but not identical to exception processing in C     In fact  you have to enable C   Exception Handling if you want it in Visual Studio - the default behavior does not guarantee that local objects are destroyed in all cases   In either case  Exception Handling is not really harder it is just different   Now for your actual questions      Do you really write exception safe code    Yes  I strive for exception safe code in all cases   I evangelize using RAII techniques for scoped access to resources  e g   boost  shared ptr for memory  boost  lock guard for locking    In general  consistent usage of RAII and scope guarding techniques will make exception safe code much easier to write   The trick is to learn what exists and how to apply it      Are you sure your last  production ready  code is exception safe    No   It is as safe as it is   I can say that I haven t seen a process fault due to an exception in several years of 24 7 activity   I don t expect perfect code  just well-written code   In addition to providing exception safety  the techniques above guarantee correctness in a way that is near impossible to achieve with try catch blocks   If you are catching everything in your top control scope  thread  process  etc    then you can be sure that you will continue to run in the face of exceptions  most of the time    The same techniques will also help you continue to run correctly in the face of exceptions without try catch blocks everywhere      Can you even be sure that it is    Yes   You can be sure by a thorough code audit but no one really does that do they   Regular code reviews and careful developers go a long way to getting there though      Do you know and or actually use alternatives that work    I have tried a few variations over the years such as encoding states in the upper bits  ala HRESULTs  or that horrible setjmp       longjmp   hack   Both of these break down in practice though in completely different ways     In the end  if you get into the habit of applying a few techniques and carefully thinking about where you can actually do something in response to an exception  you will end up with very readable code that is exception safe   You can sum this up by following these rules    You only want to see try catch when you can do something about a specific exception You almost never want to see a raw new or delete in code Eschew std  sprintf  snprintf  and arrays in general - use std  ostringstream for formatting and replace arrays with std  vector and std  string When in doubt  look for functionality in Boost or STL before rolling your own   I can only recommend that you learn how to use exceptions properly and forget about result codes if you plan on writing in C     If you want to avoid exceptions  you might want to consider writing in another language that either does not have them or makes them safe   If you want to really learn how to fully utilize C    read a few books from Herb Sutter  Nicolai Josuttis  and Scott Meyers

User · Answer

Leaving aside the confusion between SEH and C   exceptions  you need to be aware that exceptions can be thrown at any time  and write your code with that in mind  The need for exception-safety is largely what drives the use of RAII  smart pointers  and other modern C   techniques    If you follow the well-established patterns  writing exception-safe code is not particularly hard  and in fact it s easier than writing code that handles error returns properly in all cases

User · Answer

Writing exception-safe code in C   is not so much about using lots of try     catch     blocks  It s about documenting what kind of guarantees your code provides   I recommend reading Herb Sutter s Guru Of The Week series  in particular installments 59  60 and 61   To summarize  there are three levels of exception safety you can provide    Basic  When your code throws an exception  your code does not leak resources  and objects remain destructible  Strong  When your code throws an exception  it leaves the state of the application unchanged  No throw  Your code never throws exceptions    Personally  I discovered these articles quite late  so much of my C   code is definitely not exception-safe

[c++] Do you (really) write exception safe code?

Examples related to c++

Examples related to exception-handling