RSS 2.0
Sign In
# Monday, March 12, 2007
C++ Standard Library Issues List, Issue 254

I'm tracking this issue already for the several years, and have my unpretentious opinion. To make my arguments clear I'll bring the issue description here.

254. Exception types in clause 19 are constructed from std::string

Section: 19.1 [std.exceptions], 27.4.2.1.1 [ios::failure] Status: Tentatively Ready Submitter: Dave Abrahams Date: 2000-08-01

Discussion:

Many of the standard exception types which implementations are required to throw are constructed with a const std::string& parameter. For example:

     19.1.5  Class out_of_range                          [lib.out.of.range]
     namespace std {
       class out_of_range : public logic_error {
       public:
         explicit out_of_range(const string& what_arg);
       };
     }

   1 The class out_of_range defines the type of objects  thrown  as  excep-
     tions to report an argument value not in its expected range.

     out_of_range(const string& what_arg);

     Effects:
       Constructs an object of class out_of_range.
     Postcondition:
       strcmp(what(), what_arg.c_str()) == 0.

There are at least two problems with this:

  1. A program which is low on memory may end up throwing std::bad_alloc instead of out_of_range because memory runs out while constructing the exception object.
  2. An obvious implementation which stores a std::string data member may end up invoking terminate() during exception unwinding because the exception object allocates memory (or rather fails to) as it is being copied.

There may be no cure for (1) other than changing the interface to out_of_range, though one could reasonably argue that (1) is not a defect. Personally I don't care that much if out-of-memory is reported when I only have 20 bytes left, in the case when out_of_range would have been reported. People who use exception-specifications might care a lot, though.

There is a cure for (2), but it isn't completely obvious. I think a note for implementors should be made in the standard. Avoiding possible termination in this case shouldn't be left up to chance. The cure is to use a reference-counted "string" implementation in the exception object. I am not necessarily referring to a std::string here; any simple reference-counting scheme for a NTBS would do.

Further discussion, in email:

...I'm not so concerned about (1). After all, a library implementation can add const char* constructors as an extension, and users don't need to avail themselves of the standard exceptions, though this is a lame position to be forced into. FWIW, std::exception and std::bad_alloc don't require a temporary basic_string.

...I don't think the fixed-size buffer is a solution to the problem, strictly speaking, because you can't satisfy the postcondition
  strcmp(what(), what_arg.c_str()) == 0
For all values of what_arg (i.e. very long values). That means that the only truly conforming solution requires a dynamic allocation.

Further discussion, from Redmond:

The most important progress we made at the Redmond meeting was realizing that there are two separable issues here: the const string& constructor, and the copy constructor. If a user writes something like throw std::out_of_range("foo"), the const string& constructor is invoked before anything gets thrown. The copy constructor is potentially invoked during stack unwinding.

The copy constructor is a more serious problem, becuase failure during stack unwinding invokes terminate. The copy constructor must be nothrow. CuraƧao: Howard thinks this requirement may already be present.

The fundamental problem is that it's difficult to get the nothrow requirement to work well with the requirement that the exception objects store a string of unbounded size, particularly if you also try to make the const string& constructor nothrow. Options discussed include:

  • Limit the size of a string that exception objects are required to throw: change the postconditions of 19.1.2 [domain.error] paragraph 3 and 19.1.6 [runtime.error] paragraph 3 to something like this: "strncmp(what(), what_arg._str(), N) == 0, where N is an implementation defined constant no smaller than 256".
  • Allow the const string& constructor to throw, but not the copy constructor. It's the implementor's responsibility to get it right. (An implementor might use a simple refcount class.)
  • Compromise between the two: an implementation is not allowed to throw if the string's length is less than some N, but, if it doesn't throw, the string must compare equal to the argument.
  • Add a new constructor that takes a const char*

(Not all of these options are mutually exclusive.)

...

To be honest, I do not understand their (committee members') decisions. It seems they are trying to conceal themselves from the problem virtually proposing to store character buffer in the exception object. In fact the problem is more general, and is related to any exception types that store some data, and which can throw during copy construction. How to avoid problems during copy construction? Well, do not perform activity that can lead to an exception. If copying data can throw, then do not copy it! Thus we have to share data between exception objects.

This logic brought me to a safe exception type design. E.g. exception object should keep refcounted handle to a data object that is shared between type instances.

The only question is: why didn't they even consider this way?

Monday, March 12, 2007 9:52:09 AM UTC  #    Comments [0] -
Tips and tricks
All comments require the approval of the site owner before being displayed.
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (Some html is allowed: a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, super, u) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.  

[Captcha]Enter the code shown (prevents robots):

Live Comment Preview
Archive
<March 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567
Statistics
Total Posts: 366
This Year: 2
This Month: 0
This Week: 0
Comments: 227
Locations of visitors to this page
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are our own personal opinions and do not represent our employer's view in anyway.

© 2019, Nesterovsky bros
All Content © 2019, Nesterovsky bros
DasBlog theme 'Business' created by Christoph De Baene (delarou)