STDCXX-600

[Eric Lemings-2]

 
FYI-type stuff.

I've been at this issue for the past couple hours.  Here's what I've
found so far.

My basic test case looks like this:

#include <exceptions>
#include <stdexcept>
 
int main () {
    try {
        // throw statement (see below)
    } catch (std::exception&) {
    } catch (...) {
    }

    return 0;
}

The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:

a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
("main()"), 1, 0);
b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");

No clue yet why they are not caught.

The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:

c.    char* what = "what"; throw (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
()._C_assign (what, 0);

Both of the first throw statements ultimately call the last throw
statement so my current guess is that the problem has something to do
with the internal what buffer.

Brad.

[Eric Lemings-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Lemings [mailto:Eric.Lemings@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:10 PM
> To: dev@...
> Subject: STDCXX-600
>
>  
...

>
> The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
> getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:
>
> a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
> ("main()"), 1, 0);
> b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");
>
> No clue yet why they are not caught.
>
> The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:
>
> c.    char* what = "what"; throw
> (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
> ()._C_assign (what, 0);
>
> Both of the first throw statements ultimately call the last throw
> statement so my current guess is that the problem has something to do
> with the internal what buffer.

Actually, the second/"b" case above  doesn't even use the internal what
buffer.  So it's not that.

So I'm thinking it may be a compiler bug: throwing an exception from
different namespaces; i.e. in this case, throwing a `std' exception from
a `__rw' function.  I built and ran the test case with a more recent
version of gcc (4.3) and it works fine.

Brad.

[Martin Sebor]

Eric Lemings wrote:

>  
> FYI-type stuff.
>
> I've been at this issue for the past couple hours.  Here's what I've
> found so far.
>
> My basic test case looks like this:
>
> #include <exceptions>
> #include <stdexcept>
>  
> int main () {
>     try {
>         // throw statement (see below)
>     } catch (std::exception&) {
>     } catch (...) {
>     }
>
>     return 0;
> }
>
> The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
> getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:
>
> a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
> ("main()"), 1, 0);
> b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");
>
> No clue yet why they are not caught.
>
> The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:
>
> c.    char* what = "what"; throw (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
> ()._C_assign (what, 0);

Have you tried changing this to something like:

     _STD::out_of_range ex;
     ex._C_assign (what, 0);
     throw ex;

Martin

>
> Both of the first throw statements ultimately call the last throw
> statement so my current guess is that the problem has something to do
> with the internal what buffer.
>
> Brad.

[Eric Lemings-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@...] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:47 PM
> To: dev@...
> Subject: Re: STDCXX-600
>
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >  
> > FYI-type stuff.
> >
> > I've been at this issue for the past couple hours.  Here's what I've
> > found so far.
> >
> > My basic test case looks like this:
> >
> > #include <exceptions>
> > #include <stdexcept>
> >  
> > int main () {
> >     try {
> >         // throw statement (see below)
> >     } catch (std::exception&) {
> >     } catch (...) {
> >     }
> >
> >     return 0;
> > }
> >
> > The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
> > getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:
> >
> > a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
> > ("main()"), 1, 0);
> > b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");
> >
> > No clue yet why they are not caught.
> >
> > The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:
> >
> > c.    char* what = "what"; throw
> (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
> > ()._C_assign (what, 0);
>
> Have you tried changing this to something like:
>
>      _STD::out_of_range ex;
>      ex._C_assign (what, 0);
>      throw ex;

I did but I got some sort of weird compile error: invalid goto label or
something like that.

Brad.

[Martin Sebor]

Eric Lemings wrote:

>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@...] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:47 PM
>> To: dev@...
>> Subject: Re: STDCXX-600
>>
>> Eric Lemings wrote:
>>>  
>>> FYI-type stuff.
>>>
>>> I've been at this issue for the past couple hours.  Here's what I've
>>> found so far.
>>>
>>> My basic test case looks like this:
>>>
>>> #include <exceptions>
>>> #include <stdexcept>
>>>  
>>> int main () {
>>>     try {
>>>         // throw statement (see below)
>>>     } catch (std::exception&) {
>>>     } catch (...) {
>>>     }
>>>
>>>     return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
>>> getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:
>>>
>>> a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
>>> ("main()"), 1, 0);
>>> b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");
>>>
>>> No clue yet why they are not caught.
>>>
>>> The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:
>>>
>>> c.    char* what = "what"; throw
>> (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
>>> ()._C_assign (what, 0);
>> Have you tried changing this to something like:
>>
>>      _STD::out_of_range ex;
>>      ex._C_assign (what, 0);
>>      throw ex;
>
> I did but I got some sort of weird compile error: invalid goto label or
> something like that.

That's most likely because you forgot to establish a scope
for the block of code containing the declaration of x (it's
illegal to jump past a declaration).

>
> Brad.

[Eric Lemings-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@...]
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:55 AM
> To: dev@...
> Subject: Re: STDCXX-600
>
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >  
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@...] On Behalf Of
> Martin Sebor
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:47 PM
> >> To: dev@...
> >> Subject: Re: STDCXX-600
> >>
> >> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >>>  
> >>> FYI-type stuff.
> >>>
> >>> I've been at this issue for the past couple hours.  
> Here's what I've
> >>> found so far.
> >>>
> >>> My basic test case looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> #include <exceptions>
> >>> #include <stdexcept>
> >>>  
> >>> int main () {
> >>>     try {
> >>>         // throw statement (see below)
> >>>     } catch (std::exception&) {
> >>>     } catch (...) {
> >>>     }
> >>>
> >>>     return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> The following "throw statements" all throw exceptions that are not
> >>> getting caught by the compiler's runtime libraries:
> >>>
> >>> a. _RW::__rw_throw (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, _RWSTD_FUNC
> >>> ("main()"), 1, 0);
> >>> b.    _RW::__rw_throw_proc (_RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE, "what");
> >>>
> >>> No clue yet why they are not caught.
> >>>
> >>> The following "throw statement" however is caught properly:
> >>>
> >>> c.    char* what = "what"; throw
> >> (_STD::out_of_rang&)_STD::out_of_range
> >>> ()._C_assign (what, 0);
> >> Have you tried changing this to something like:
> >>
> >>      _STD::out_of_range ex;
> >>      ex._C_assign (what, 0);
> >>      throw ex;
> >
> > I did but I got some sort of weird compile error: invalid
> goto label or
> > something like that.
>
> That's most likely because you forgot to establish a scope
> for the block of code containing the declaration of x (it's
> illegal to jump past a declaration).

I tried that too.  :)

Brad.

[Eric Lemings-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Lemings
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:57 AM
> To: 'dev@...'
> Subject: RE: STDCXX-600
>
>  
...

> > >> Have you tried changing this to something like:
> > >>
> > >>      _STD::out_of_range ex;
> > >>      ex._C_assign (what, 0);
> > >>      throw ex;
> > >
> > > I did but I got some sort of weird compile error: invalid
> > goto label or
> > > something like that.
> >
> > That's most likely because you forgot to establish a scope
> > for the block of code containing the declaration of x (it's
> > illegal to jump past a declaration).
>
> I tried that too.  :)

Well I could have sworn I tried that.  The following change works:

Index: src/exception.cpp
===================================================================
--- src/exception.cpp   (revision 679465)
+++ src/exception.cpp   (working copy)
@@ -691,7 +691,11 @@
         throw (_STD::length_error&)_STD::length_error ()._C_assign
(what, 0);

     case _RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE:
-        throw (_STD::out_of_range&)_STD::out_of_range ()._C_assign
(what, 0);
+    {
+        _STD::out_of_range exc;
+        exc._C_assign (what, 0);
+        throw exc;
+    }

     case _RWSTD_ERROR_RUNTIME_ERROR:
         throw (_STD::runtime_error&)

Should I just check in this change for this particular exception for
now?  I suspect all other standard exceptions would also need to be
changed.

Brad.

[Eric Lemings-2]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Lemings
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:10 AM
> To: Eric Lemings; 'dev@...'
> Subject: RE: STDCXX-600
>
>  
>
...
>
> Should I just check in this change for this particular
> exception for now?  I suspect all other standard exceptions
> would also need to be changed.

Doh.  Scratch that.  I was using the working test case.  The original
test case still fails.

Brad.

[Martin Sebor]

Eric Lemings wrote:

>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eric Lemings
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:57 AM
>> To: 'dev@...'
>> Subject: RE: STDCXX-600
>>
>>  
> ...
>>>>> Have you tried changing this to something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>      _STD::out_of_range ex;
>>>>>      ex._C_assign (what, 0);
>>>>>      throw ex;
>>>> I did but I got some sort of weird compile error: invalid
>>> goto label or
>>>> something like that.
>>> That's most likely because you forgot to establish a scope
>>> for the block of code containing the declaration of x (it's
>>> illegal to jump past a declaration).
>> I tried that too.  :)
>
> Well I could have sworn I tried that.  The following change works:
>
> Index: src/exception.cpp
> ===================================================================
> --- src/exception.cpp   (revision 679465)
> +++ src/exception.cpp   (working copy)
> @@ -691,7 +691,11 @@
>          throw (_STD::length_error&)_STD::length_error ()._C_assign
> (what, 0);
>
>      case _RWSTD_ERROR_OUT_OF_RANGE:
> -        throw (_STD::out_of_range&)_STD::out_of_range ()._C_assign
> (what, 0);
> +    {
> +        _STD::out_of_range exc;
> +        exc._C_assign (what, 0);
> +        throw exc;
> +    }
>
>      case _RWSTD_ERROR_RUNTIME_ERROR:
>          throw (_STD::runtime_error&)
>
> Should I just check in this change for this particular exception for
> now?  I suspect all other standard exceptions would also need to be
> changed.

Right. We might as well do them all.

Martin

>
> Brad.