Re: verbose exception

[Thomas Metz <tmetz free fr>]

> > > This is practically a killer.  No one (I think) will add this, it is
> > > way too inconvenient and intrusive (and I guess also a performance
> > > slower.)
Maybe. The idea it's just to provide another way to the developer for 
debugging at runtime, it's up to him to decide if he wants to use it 
completly, partially (without the stack trace or limited stack trace) or not 
at all.

So if VE_CATCH_RETHROW macros are not added, with the line :

VE_THROW_VERBOSE_EXCEPTION(bad_format,
                                    "Unable to  read " << fileName <<  " "
                                        << fileId << " : " << VE_WHAT);

you will get : 
Unable to read myFile.bin 2 : bad_format
while executing "int test_ex ()" (file test_verbose_exception.cpp line 42)

On my point of view, it is a simple way to get lots of information.

Sometimes with some applications you feel alone. Just : time-out, invalid 
parameter, internal error, interrupt system call. It's difficult to find the 
problem, even with the code.
In most of case (85%) you don't care, you just have to restart the 
application, but in some applications a little more critical (client / 
server / distributed apps), you have to explain what's happened. It's often 
hard.

> > I've know of a guy that did something with similar functionality but a
> > better implementation.
Indeed the execinfo.h is interresting but is seems to be limited to gcc (for 
me not a problem) an it certainly requires the debugging information. if yes, 
it's a pity, the goal is not to debug the code (it's supposed to be already 
done), but to find easily the trouble source (origin) when an error occurs. 
Else I agree, it is a cleaner / simpler implementation.


>> like this idea. But what about a structure like this:

>>#ifndef  DEBUG_VE_USE_EXCEPTIONS
>>    #define VE_THROW_???_???(..., info, ...) \
>>        std::cerr << info << std::endl;

>>#else      DEBUG_VE_USE_VERBOSE_EXCEPTIONS
>>    #define VE_THROW_???_???(..., info, ...) \
>>        /* the verbose exception */          \
>>        ...                                  \
>>        ...
>>#endif
I assume that you mean to print automatically to stderr => indeed it can be 
added. 


Thomas

Le Vendredi 22 Septembre 2006 23:03, Paul Davis a écrit :
> Oops, forgot a keyword...
>
> On 9/22/06, Paul Davis <pjdavis engineering uiowa edu> wrote:
> > I've know of a guy that did something with similar functionality but a
> > better implementation.
> >
> > http://www.slamb.org/svn/repos/trunk/projects/atoms/atoms/debug.cc
> >
> > This is an implementation of a Backtrace class that can be conditionally
> > included in throw exceptions ( He has it compile conditional )
> >
> > It does depend on the compiler and system though.  Specifically, the
> > header execinfo.h ( Which I assume to be a standard gcc extension ).
> > Although, execinfo might not exist on other platforms or for other
> > compilers.
>
> I'm NOT very knowledgable as to all the other compilers and the backtrace
> accessibility.
>
> And, its not like you get anything more than you'd get from gdb. So, unless
>
> > you've got a huge project with at least hundreds of installations and
> > want to implement some sort of automatic backtrace report on crash
> > capability, I don't really see the need.
> >
> > But, I'll have to agree with the other Paul, wrapping code in try/catch
> > blocks is not the way to go (And is generally a Bad Idea).
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 9/22/06, Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev gmx net> wrote:
> > > Thomas Metz wrote:
> > > > Inconvenients :
> > > >  - a VE_CATCH_RETHROW macro shall be added on all methods / functions
> > >
> > > This is practically a killer.  No one (I think) will add this, it is
> > > way too inconvenient and intrusive (and I guess also a performance
> > > slower.)
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list