Catch Application Error C
Contents |
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 asp.net application error handling Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring developers wpf application error handling or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack objective c error handling Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Error handling in C code up vote c error handling goto 102 down vote favorite 59 What do you consider "best practice" when it comes to error handling errors in a consistent way in a C library. There are two ways I've been thinking of: Always return error code. A typical function would look like this: MYAPI_ERROR getObjectSize(MYAPIHandle h, int* returnedSize); The always provide an error pointer approach: int getObjectSize(MYAPIHandle h, MYAPI_ERROR* returnedError); When using the first approach
Objective C Error Handling Best Practices
it's possible to write code like this where the error handling check is directly placed on the function call: int size; if(getObjectSize(h, &size) != MYAPI_SUCCESS) { // Error handling } Which looks better than the error handling code here. MYAPIError error; int size; size = getObjectSize(h, &error); if(error != MYAPI_SUCCESS) { // Error handling } However, I think using the return value for returning data makes the code more readable, It's obvious that something was written to the size variable in the second example. Do you have any ideas on why I should prefer any of those approaches or perhaps mix them or use something else? I'm not a fan of global error states since it tends to make multi threaded use of the library way more painful. EDIT: C++ specific ideas on this would also be interesting to hear about as long as they are not involving exceptions since it's not an option for me at the moment... c error-handling share|improve this question edited Nov 6 '13 at 19:09 ubershmekel 3,59513144 asked Dec 22 '08 at 10:46 Laserallan 6,70172956 add a comment| 17 Answers 17 active oldest votes up vote 49 down vote accepted I like the erro
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and
Error Handling Functions In C
policies of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the c error handling best practices company Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags error handling in c++ Users Badges Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 4.7 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes http://stackoverflow.com/questions/385975/error-handling-in-c-code a minute: Sign up Try catch statements in C up vote 53 down vote favorite 17 I was thinking today about the try/catch blocks existent in another languages. Googled for a while this but with no result. From what I know, there is not such a thing as try/catch in C. However, is there a way to "simulate" them? Sure, there http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10586003/try-catch-statements-in-c is assert and other tricks but nothing like try/catch, that also catch the raised exception. Thank you c share|improve this question asked May 14 '12 at 15:07 Andrew 2,310103869 1 Exception-like mechanisms are not going to be generally useful without a mechanism to automatically free resources when the stack is unwound. C++ uses RAII; Java, C#, Python, etc. use garbage collectors. (And note that garbage collectors free only memory. To automatically free other types of resources, they also add things like finalizers or context managers...) –jamesdlin May 3 '15 at 5:34 @jamesdlin, Why couldn't we do RAII with C? –Pacerier May 15 '15 at 22:45 @Pacerier RAII requires calling functions automatically when objects are destroyed (i.e., destructors). How do you propose doing that in C? –jamesdlin May 15 '15 at 23:02 add a comment| 11 Answers 11 active oldest votes up vote 47 down vote accepted C itself doesn't support exceptions but you can simulate them to a degree with setjmp and longjmp calls. static jmp_buf s_jumpBuffer; void Example() { if (setjmp(s_jumpBuffer)) { // The
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 https://www.codingunit.com/c-tutorial-error-handling-exception-handling functions called by the program. A lot of C function calls return a http://rlc.vlinder.ca/blog/2010/01/error-handling-in-c/ -1 or NULL in case of an error, so quick test on these return values are easily done with for instance an ‘if statement’. In 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 error handling 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 display the return code of a program that has previously run). So the one thing you need to remember is that c error handling 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 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
handling in C Posted on January 16, 2010 by rlc One of the things I do as a analyst-programmer is write software - that would be the "programmer" part. I usually do that in C++ but, sometimes, when the facilities of C++ aren't available (e.g. no exception handling and no RTTI) C becomes a more obvious choice. When that happens, RTTI is not the thing I miss the most - you can get around that using magic numbers if you need to. Exceptions, on the other hand, become a very painful absence when you're used to using them. Error handling is a very important part of programming: a lot of things can go wrong when a program runs and most of those things need to be handled properly because the functionalities of your program depend on them. C++ uses exceptions for this purpose, so that if a call to foo fails, you don't have to handle that failure in the context of your call - especially if you wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway. Thus, the following code: foo(); bar(); will call bar only if foo didn't throw any exceptions. Presumably both do something useful and neither of them return anything useful. Now, the same thing would be true in C if we did something like this: int result = foo(); if (result == 0) result = bar(); Now, both foo and bar return a result code which, in this case, is 0 if all is well. Windows programmers will be more familiar with this: HRESULT result = foo(); if (SUCCEEDED(result)) result = bar(); which amounts to the same thing. HRESULT, after all, is a 32-bit unsigned integer of which a few bits are reserved to indicate where the error originated and the other bits indicate the error. An HRESULT value of 0 means no error, so the SUCCEEDED basically checks whether the result is 0. The trouble starts when the function returned an integer already - e.g. a getFooCount function: unsigned int foo_count(getFooCount()); foo(foo_count); In thi