Re: Handle C++ exception and structured exception together
* Pavel:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
It can easily lead to memory leaks, yes, and it can also easily lead
to double destruction. Both are generally disasters. Although
possibly not immediate disasters in the sense of an immediate program
crash.
Please.. we are talking about a concrete facility as per the original
question. They throw pointers and delete them in handlers. Apparently
they cannot do it in (...) handler (which would create a memory leak but
I refuse to see how it, per se, can lead to a double destruction) but
they do not try to do it and they do not have to do it. The MFC style:
throw CException or its derived classes reasonably handles the issue.
What disasters are we hinting at here?
I think it's as concrete as can be described with words, no hinting.
Double destruction example would just be example of destroying twice,
which is easy to do when using manual destruction instead of RAII,
especially in code where that destruction has to be redundantly repeated
(as is the case with MFC exception handler code).
Memory leak + disaster example code:
void throwX( char const s[] ) { throw std::runtime_error( s ); }
struct Base()
{
virtual ~Base() {}
virtual void foo() = 0;
void bar()
{
try { foo(); } catch( ... ) { throwX( "Base::bar()" ); }
}
};
struct SillyDerived: Base
{
void foo() { int* p = 0; *p = 666; }
};
Now with general SEH -> C++ exception translation enabled, and that SEH
nullpointer exception translated to a C++ throw of pointer to
dynamically allocated object, a call to bar() leaks memory, and much
worse, in the general case where a nullpointer exception indicates
something gone horribly awry, is likely to leave the program in an
unstable state (memory corruption, invalid assumptions) => disaster.
Cheers, & hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?