Error Checking In C Programming
Contents |
known as exception handling). By convention, the programmer is expected to prevent errors from occurring in the first place, and test return return error c values from functions. For example, -1 and NULL are used in exception handling in c language several functions such as socket() (Unix socket programming) or malloc() respectively to indicate problems that the programmer disk error checking program should be aware about. In a worst case scenario where there is an unavoidable error and no way to recover from it, a C programmer usually tries to error checking c drive log the error and "gracefully" terminate the program. There is an external variable called "errno", accessible by the programs after including
Programming Error Handling Best Practices
Such variable indexes error descriptions accessible by the function 'strerror( errno )'. The following code tests the return value from the library function malloc to see if dynamic memory allocation completed properly: #include
there are ways to do error handling. Of course the programmer needs to prevent errors during coding and should always test the return values of functions called by the program. A lot of C function calls return a -1 or NULL in case of an error,
File Handling In C Programming
so quick test on these return values are easily done with for instance an ‘if statement’. In how to perform check disk previous tutorials we already mention that this behavior (returning numbers to indicate an error) is also used in Unix or Linux like operating systems. For c error handling best practices instance if a program successful ends the return value of the program is zero. If the program ends with an error usually a number larger than zero is returned (for example 1). (With command ‘echo $?’ on the command line you can https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Programming/Error_handling display the return code of a program that has previously run). So the one thing you need to remember is that you (the programmer) are responsible for error handling. You’re the person that needs to make sure that a program will gracefully terminate and not just CRASH unexpectedly! It is you that need to take appropriate action depending on the return values of function calls. Global Variable errno The global variable errno is used by C functions and this integer is set if there is https://www.codingunit.com/c-tutorial-error-handling-exception-handling an error during the function call. To make use of errno you need to include errno.h and you need to call ‘extern int errno;’ Let us take a look at an example: #include
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116576/how-can-i-improve-my-error-checking-and-handling with us Programmers Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered Ask Question _ Programmers Stack Exchange is a http://www.on-time.com/ddj0011.htm question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top How can I improve my error checking and handling? up vote 12 down vote favorite Lately I have been error c struggling to understand what the right amount of checking is and what the proper methods are. I have a few questions regarding this: What is the proper way to check for errors (bad input, bad states, etc)? Is it better to explicitly check for errors, or use functions like asserts which can be optimized out of your final code? I feel like explicitly checking clutters a program with a lot of extra code which shouldn't be executed in most situations anyway-- and in c programming not to mention most errors end up with an abort/exit failure. Why clutter a function with explicit checks just to abort? I have looked for asserts versus explicit checking of errors and found little to truly explain when to do either. Most say 'use asserts to check for logic errors and use explicit checks to check for other failures.' This doesn't seem to get us very far though. Would we say this is feasible: Malloc returning null, check explictly API user inserting odd input for functions, use asserts Would this make me any better at error checking? What else can I do? I really want to improve and write better, 'professional' code. c testing assertions share|improve this question asked Oct 27 '11 at 15:50 Corey 215129 migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 27 '11 at 16:16 This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers. 3 Good question, but I think it might be better suited for one of the sister sites (programmers?). –user786653 Oct 27 '11 at 15:58 Thanks, I wasn't sure. I thought since it was pretty code-related SO would have been alright. –Corey Oct 27 '11 at 16:22 3 The simple answer is "This is why exceptions were invented. Get a better language." –DeadMG Oct 27 '11 at 16:42 1 @DeadMG: setjmp/longjmp are available in C, so you don't need a new language. –user786653 Oct 27 '11 at 17:05 3 @DeadMG: Someone who cannot
Peter Petersen Error handling is an important issue in embedded systems, and it can account for a substantial portion of a project's code. We were faced with this issue during the design of RTFiles, the embedded filesystem component of On Time RTOS-32, our Win32-compatible RTOS for 32-bit x86 targets. The core filesystem is portable with a C function API to the application and a device-driver interface below it. Typically, errors can occur in device drivers and must be reported to the application with suitable return codes, so errors must travel through the complete core filesystem. The classic C approach to this problem is return codes. Each function returns a value indicating success or failure. However, with a nontrivial function call hierarchy, this approach clutters the code significantly. Every function must check the return code of every function call it makes and take care of errors. In most cases, the function will merely pass any errors back up to its caller. RTFiles has several hundred internal functions and a call hierarchy up to about 15 levels deep, so this approach would have been a nightmare to maintain. Programming languages such as Ada or C++ address this issue with exceptions. Exceptions make it easy to separate error handling from the rest of the code. Intermediate functions can completely ignore errors occurring in functions they call, if they can't handle them anyway. Exceptions are much easier to maintain than error return codes, so we definitely wanted to use them for RTFiles. Unfortunately, we had to write RTFiles in C, and not C++ or Ada, for portability. RTFiles must support compilers without C++ support. Another issue is overhead and reliability. C++ exception handling needs a lot of run-time system support routines, which might add too much code to a small embedded system. C++ exceptions are objects dynamically allocated from the heap, but many embedded systems do not want to use any dynamic memory allocation to avoid heap fragmentation and out-of-heap-space problems. For example, what would happen if an RTFiles device driver throws a disk-write-protection exception, and the heap allocation called by throw throws an out-of-memory exception? The solution to the problem is to implement a simple exception-handling library in C with the following goals: No dynamic memory allocation. Robust (the exception handling library itself must not fail). Must support both exception-handlers and finally-handlers. Reentrant for multitasking applications. In this article, we describe how we designed and implemented our exception-handling library, demonstrate how it is used, and compare it to C++ exception handling. The com