A throw() specification on a function declaration indicates which specific exception(s) the function is allowed to throw to the caller. It is a kind of contract so the caller knows what to expect. If no throw() is specified, the function is allowed to throw any exception.
throw usually causes the function to terminate immediately, so you even if you do put any code after it (inside the same block), it won't execute. This goes for both C++ and C#.
The throws keyword is used to declare which exceptions can be thrown from a method, while the throw keyword is used to explicitly throw an exception within a method or block of code.
The throw keyword throws an exception when a problem is detected, which lets us create a custom error. The catch statement allows you to define a block of code to be executed, if an error occurs in the try block.
No, it is not considered good practice. On the contrary, it is generally considered a bad idea.
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill22.htm goes into a lot more detail about why, but the problem is partly that the compiler is unable to enforce this, so it has to be checked at runtime, which is usually undesirable. And it is not well supported in any case. (MSVC ignores exception specifications, except throw(), which it interprets as a guarantee that no exception will be thrown.
Jalf already linked to it, but the GOTW puts it quite nicely why exception specifications are not as useful as one might hope:
int Gunc() throw(); // will throw nothing (?)
int Hunc() throw(A,B); // can only throw A or B (?)
Are the comments correct? Not quite.
Gunc()
may indeed throw something, andHunc()
may well throw something other than A or B! The compiler just guarantees to beat them senseless if they do… oh, and to beat your program senseless too, most of the time.
That's just what it comes down to, you probably just will end up with a call to terminate()
and your program dying a quick but painful death.
The GOTWs conclusion is:
So here’s what seems to be the best advice we as a community have learned as of today:
- Moral #1: Never write an exception specification.
- Moral #2: Except possibly an empty one, but if I were you I’d avoid even that.
To add a bit more value to all the other answer's to this question, one should invest a few minutes in the question: What is the output of the following code?
#include <iostream>
void throw_exception() throw(const char *)
{
throw 10;
}
void my_unexpected(){
std::cout << "well - this was unexpected" << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv){
std::set_unexpected(my_unexpected);
try{
throw_exception();
}catch(int x){
std::cout << "catch int: " << x << std::endl;
}catch(...){
std::cout << "catch ..." << std::endl;
}
}
Answer: As noted here, the program calls std::terminate()
and thus none of the exception handlers will get called.
Details: First my_unexpected()
function is called, but since it doesn't re-throw a matching exception type for the throw_exception()
function prototype, in the end, std::terminate()
is called. So the full output looks like this:
user@user:~/tmp$ g++ -o except.test except.test.cpp
user@user:~/tmp$ ./except.test
well - this was unexpected
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'int'
Aborted (core dumped)
The only practical effect of the throw specifier is that if something different from myExc
is thrown by your function, std::unexpected
will be called (instead of the normal unhandled exception mechanism).
To document the kind of exceptions that a function can throw, I typically do this:
bool
some_func() /* throw (myExc) */ {
}
Well, while googling about this throw specification, I had a look at this article :- (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2006/03/22/558390.aspx)
I am reproducing a part of it here also, so that it can be used in future irrespective of the fact that the above link works or not.
class MyClass
{
size_t CalculateFoo()
{
:
:
};
size_t MethodThatCannotThrow() throw()
{
return 100;
};
void ExampleMethod()
{
size_t foo, bar;
try
{
foo = CalculateFoo();
bar = foo * 100;
MethodThatCannotThrow();
printf("bar is %d", bar);
}
catch (...)
{
}
}
};
When the compiler sees this, with the "throw()" attribute, the compiler can completely optimize the "bar" variable away, because it knows that there is no way for an exception to be thrown from MethodThatCannotThrow(). Without the throw() attribute, the compiler has to create the "bar" variable, because if MethodThatCannotThrow throws an exception, the exception handler may/will depend on the value of the bar variable.
In addition, source code analysis tools like prefast can (and will) use the throw() annotation to improve their error detection capabilities - for example, if you have a try/catch and all the functions you call are marked as throw(), you don't need the try/catch (yes, this has a problem if you later call a function that could throw).
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With