Search Results

Search found 13011 results on 521 pages for 'catch block'.

Page 3/521 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to free memory in try-catch blocks?

    - by Kra
    Hi, I have a simple question hopefully - how does one free memory which was allocated in the try block when the exception occurs? Consider the following code: try { char *heap = new char [50]; //let exception occur here delete[] heap; } catch (...) { cout << "Error, leaving function now"; //delete[] heap; doesn't work of course, heap is unknown to compiler return 1; } How can I free memory after the heap was allocated and exception occurred before calling delete[] heap? Is there a rule not to allocate memory on heap in these try .. catch blocks? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Have I to count transactions before rollback one in catch block in T-SQL?

    - by abatishchev
    I have next block in the end of each my stored procedure for SQL Server 2008 BEGIN TRY BEGIN TRAN -- my code COMMIT END TRY BEGIN CATCH IF (@@trancount > 0) BEGIN ROLLBACK DECLARE @message NVARCHAR(MAX) DECLARE @state INT SELECT @message = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @state = ERROR_STATE() RAISERROR (@message, 11, @state) END END CATCH Is it possible to switch CATCH-block to BEGIN CATCH ROLLBACK DECLARE @message NVARCHAR(MAX) DECLARE @state INT SELECT @message = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @state = ERROR_STATE() RAISERROR (@message, 11, @state) END CATCH or just BEGIN CATCH ROLLBACK END CATCH ?

    Read the article

  • std::map for storing static const Objects

    - by Sean M.
    I am making a game similar to Minecraft, and I am trying to fine a way to keep a map of Block objects sorted by their id. This is almost identical to the way that Minecraft does it, in that they declare a bunch of static final Block objects and initialize them, and then the constructor of each block puts a reference of that block into whatever the Java equivalent of a std::map is, so there is a central place to get ids and the Blocks with those ids. The problem is, that I am making my game in C++, and trying to do the exact same thing. In Block.h, I am declaring the Blocks like so: //Block.h public: static const Block Vacuum; static const Block Test; And in Block.cpp I am initializing them like so: //Block.cpp const Block Block::Vacuum = Block("Vacuum", 0, 0); const Block Block::Test = Block("Test", 1, 0); The block constructor looks like this: Block::Block(std::string name, uint16 id, uint8 tex) { //Check for repeat ids if (IdInUse(id)) { fprintf(stderr, "Block id %u is already in use!", (uint32)id); throw std::runtime_error("You cannot reuse block ids!"); } _id = id; //Check for repeat names if (NameInUse(name)) { fprintf(stderr, "Block name %s is already in use!", name); throw std::runtime_error("You cannot reuse block names!"); } _name = name; _tex = tex; //fprintf(stdout, "Using texture %u\n", _tex); _transparent = false; _solidity = 1.0f; idMap[id] = this; nameMap[name] = this; } And finally, the maps that I'm using to store references of Blocks in relation to their names and ids are declared as such: std::map<uint16, Block*> Block::idMap = std::map<uint16, Block*>(); //The map of block ids std::map<std::string, Block*> Block::nameMap = std::map<std::string, Block*>(); //The map of block names The problem comes when I try to get the Blocks in the maps using a method called const Block* GetBlock(uint16 id), where the last line is return idMap.at(id);. This line returns a Block with completely random values like _visibility = 0xcccc and such like that, found out through debugging. So my question is, is there something wrong with the blocks being declared as const obejcts, and then stored at pointers and accessed later on? The reason I cant store them as Block& is because that makes a copy of the Block when it is entered, so the block wouldn't have any of the attributes that could be set afterwards in the constructor of any child class, so I think I need to store them as a pointer. Any help is greatly appreciated, as I don't fully understand pointers yet. Just ask if you need to see any other parts of the code.

    Read the article

  • Asp.net MVC Route class that supports catch-all parameter anywhere in the URL

    - by Robert Koritnik
    the more I think about it the more I believe it's possible to write a custom route that would consume these URL definitions: {var1}/{var2}/{var3} Const/{var1}/{var2} Const1/{var1}/Const2/{var2} {var1}/{var2}/Const as well as having at most one greedy parameter on any position within any of the upper URLs like {*var1}/{var2}/{var3} {var1}/{*var2}/{var3} {var1}/{var2}/{*var3} There is one important constraint. Routes with greedy segment can't have any optional parts. All of them are mandatory. Example This is an exemplary request http://localhost/Show/Topic/SubTopic/SubSubTopic/123/This-is-an-example This is URL route definition {action}/{*topicTree}/{id}/{title} Algorithm Parsing request route inside GetRouteData() should work like this: Split request into segments: Show Topic SubTopic SubSubTopic 123 This-is-an-example Process route URL definition starting from the left and assigning single segment values to parameters (or matching request segment values to static route constant segments). When route segment is defined as greedy, reverse parsing and go to the last segment. Parse route segments one by one backwards (assigning them request values) until you get to the greedy catch-all one again. When you reach the greedy one again, join all remaining request segments (in original order) and assign them to the greedy catch-all route parameter. Questions As far as I can think of this, it could work. But I would like to know: Has anyone already written this so I don't have to (because there are other aspects to parsing as well that I didn't mention (constraints, defaults etc.) Do you see any flaws in this algorithm, because I'm going to have to write it myself if noone has done it so far. I haven't thought about GetVirtuaPath() method at all.

    Read the article

  • javascript - catch SyntaxError and run alternate function

    - by ludicco
    Hello there, I'm trying to build something on javascript that I can have an input that can be everything like string, xml, javascript and (non-javascript string without quotes) as follows: //strings eval("'hello I am a string'"); /* note the following proper quote marks */ //xml eval(<p>Hello I am a XML doc</p>); //javascript eval("var hello = 2+2;"); So this first 3 are working well since they are simple javascript native formats but when I try use this inside javascript //plain-text without quotes eval("hello I am a plain text without quotes"); //--SyntaxError: missing ; before statement:--// Obviously javascript interprets this as syntax error because it thinks its javascript throwing a SyntaxError. So what I would like to do it to catch this error and perform the adjustment method if this occurs. I've already tried with try catch but it doesn't work since it keeps returning the Syntax error as soon as it tries to execute the code. Any help would be much appreciated Cheers :) Additional Information: Imagine an external file that javascript would read, using spidermonkey, so it's a non-browser stuff(I can't use HttpRequest, DOM, etc...)..not sure if this matters, but there it is. :)

    Read the article

  • How to catch segmentation fault in Linux?

    - by Alex Farber
    I need to catch segmentation fault in third party library cleanup operations. This happens sometimes just before my program exits, and I cannot fix the real reason of this. In Windows programming I could do this with __try - __catch. Is there cross-platform or platform-specific way to do the same? I need this in Linux, gcc.

    Read the article

  • Best way to implement try catch in php4

    - by rgz
    What is the closest you can get to a try-catch block in php4? I'm in the middle of a callback during an xmlrpc request and it's required to return a specifically structured array no matter what. I have to error check all accesses to external resources, resulting in a deep stack of nested if-else blocks, ugly.

    Read the article

  • Problem with continue in While Loop within Try/Catch in C# (2.0)

    - by csharpnoob
    Hi, when i try to use in my ASPX Webpage in the Code Behind this try{ while() { ... db.Open(); readDataMoney = new OleDbCommand("SELECT * FROM Customer WHERE card = '" + customer.card + "';", db).ExecuteReader(); while (readDataMoney.Read()) { try { if (!readDataMoney.IsDBNull(readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Credit"))) { customer.credit = Convert.ToDouble(readDataMoney[readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Credit")]); } if (!readDataMoney.IsDBNull(readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Bonus"))) { customer.bonus = Convert.ToDouble(readDataMoney[readDataMoney.GetOrdinal("Bonus")]); } } catch (Exception ex) { Connector.writeLog("Money: " + ex.StackTrace + "" + ex.Message + "" + ex.Source); customer.credit = 0.0; customer.credit = 0.0; continue; } finally { } } readDataMoney.Close(); vsiDB.Close(); ... } }catch { continue; } The whole page hangs if there is a problem when the read from db isn't working. I tried to check for !isNull, but same problem. I have a lots of differend MDB Files to process, which are readonly (can't repair/compact) and some or others not. Same Design/Layout of Tables. With good old ASP Classic 3.0 all of them are processing with the "On Resume Next". I know I know. But that's how it is. Can't change the source. So the basic question: So is there any way to tell .NET to continue the loop whatever happens within the try loop if there is any exception? After a lots of wating time i get this exceptions: at System.Data.Common.UnsafeNativeMethods.IDBInitializeInitialize.Invoke(IntPtr pThis) at System.Data.OleDb.DataSourceWrapper.InitializeAndCreateSession(OleDbConnectionString constr, SessionWrapper& sessionWrapper) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnectionInternal..ctor(OleDbConnectionString constr, OleDbConnection connection) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnectionFactory.CreateConnection(DbConnectionOptions options, Object poolGroupProviderInfo, DbConnectionPool pool, DbConnection owningObject) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.CreateNonPooledConnection(DbConnection owningConnection, DbConnectionPoolGroup poolGroup) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory) at System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection.Open() at GetCustomer(String card)Thread was being aborted.System.Data and System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.ReadInt16(IntPtr ptr, Int32 ofs) System.Data.ProviderBase.DbBuffer.ReadInt16(Int32 offset) System.Data.OleDb.ColumnBinding.Value_I2() System.Data.OleDb.ColumnBinding.Value() System.Data.OleDb.OleDbDataReader.GetValue(Int32 ordinal) System.Data.OleDb.OleDbDataReader.get_Item(Int32 index) Thread was terminated.mscorlib Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Enclosing service execution in try-catch: bad practice?

    - by Sorin Comanescu
    Hi, Below is the usual Program.cs content for a windows service program: static class Program { /// <summary> /// The main entry point for the application. /// </summary> static void Main() { ServiceBase[] ServicesToRun; ServicesToRun = new ServiceBase[] { new MyService() }; ServiceBase.Run(ServicesToRun); } } Is it a bad practice to enclose the ServiceBase.Run(...) in a try-catch block? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Difference between try-finally and try-catch

    - by Vijay Kotari
    What's the difference between try { fooBar(); } finally { barFoo(); } and try { fooBar(); } catch(Throwable throwable) { barFoo(throwable); // Does something with throwable, logs it, or handles it. } I like the second version better because it gives me access to the Throwable. Is there any logical difference or a preferred convention between the two variations? Also, is there a way to access the exception from the finally clause?

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on try-catch blocks

    - by John Boker
    What are your thoughts on code that looks like this: public void doSomething() { try { // actual code goes here } catch (Exception ex) { throw; } } The problem I see is the actual error is not handled, just throwing the exception in a different place. I find it more difficult to debug because i don't get a line number where the actual problem is. So my question is why would this be good? ---- EDIT ---- From the answers it looks like most people are saying it's pointless to do this with no custom or specific exceptions being caught. That's what i wanted comments on, when no specific exception is being caught. I can see the point of actually doing something with a caught exception, just not the way this code is.

    Read the article

  • Enclosing service execution in try-catch

    - by Sorin Comanescu
    Hi, Below is the usual Program.cs content for a windows service program: static class Program { /// <summary> /// The main entry point for the application. /// </summary> static void Main() { ServiceBase[] ServicesToRun; ServicesToRun = new ServiceBase[] { new MyService() }; ServiceBase.Run(ServicesToRun); } } Is it a bad practice to enclose the ServiceBase.Run(...) in a try-catch block? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Catching an exception that is nested into another exception

    - by Bernhard V
    Hi, I want to catch an exception, that is nested into another exception. I'm doing it currently this way: } catch (RemoteAccessException e) { if (e != null && e.getCause() != null && e.getCause().getCause() != null) { MyException etrp = (MyException) e.getCause().getCause(); ... } else { throw new IllegalStateException("Error at calling service 'beitragskontonrVerwalten'"); } } Is there a way to do this more efficient and elegant?

    Read the article

  • Shared block device file system (cluster file system without networking)

    - by fungs
    Is there any file system that can be mounted multiple times and supports concurrent file access for Linux? Basically I want something like a cluster file system but without the need to have a running network for a distributed lock manager. That can be very handy in connection with virtual machines that can share data with the host or another VM without the need to create a network link. This I want to avoid to keep the network architecture secure (virtual machine in DMZ) but share large files. No need to scale it up, just two machines that mount the same block device. Shouldn't it be possible to have file locking information right on the disk?

    Read the article

  • Block IPs if they access a resource

    - by Victor Oliva
    I own a server that it's costantly being attacked by scripts (that try to access to phpMyAdmin's setup file's and stuff like this). I've heard that many people get this kinds of attacks, but I'm starting to worry since they are getting more common (last month I got 2 attacks, and on november 7th there are 3 attempts already (1st, 4th and 6th of nov). I'm not really concerned about it, since I don't have any database. All the info i have on that server is absolutely public, but I'm worried about that attacking-rate increase. So I thought I could -temporarily- block the IPs that come from those attackers, or something that could make my server ignore requests that ask for phpMyAdmin, pma, xamp, etc. Is there something like that? my server is Linux+Apache+Php

    Read the article

  • PMDB Block Size Choice

    - by Brian Diehl
    Choosing a block size for the P6 PMDB database is not a difficult task. In fact, taking the default of 8k is going to be just fine. Block size is one of those things that is always hotly debated. Everyone has their personal preference and can sight plenty of good reasons for their choice. To add to the confusion, Oracle supports multiple block sizes withing the same instance. So how to decide and what is the justification? Like most OLTP systems, Oracle Primavera P6 has a wide variety of data. A typical table's average row size may be less than 50 bytes or upwards of 500 bytes. There are also several tables with BLOB types but the LOB data tends not to be very large. It is likely that no single block size would be perfect for every table. So how to choose? My preference is for the 8k (8192 bytes) block size. It is a good compromise that is not too small for the wider rows, yet not to big for the thin rows. It is also important to remember that database blocks are the smallest unit of change and caching. I prefer to have more, individual "working units" in my database. For an instance with 4gb of buffer cache, an 8k block will provide 524,288 blocks of cache. The following SQL*Plus script returns the average, median, min, and max rows per block. column "AVG(CNT)" format 999.99 set verify off select avg(cnt), median(cnt), min(cnt), max(cnt), count(*) from ( select dbms_rowid.ROWID_RELATIVE_FNO(rowid) , dbms_rowid.ROWID_BLOCK_NUMBER(rowid) , count(*) cnt from &tab group by dbms_rowid.ROWID_RELATIVE_FNO(rowid) , dbms_rowid.ROWID_BLOCK_NUMBER(rowid) ) Running this for the TASK table, I get this result on a database with an 8k block size. Each activity, on average, has about 19 rows per block. Enter value for tab: task AVG(CNT) MEDIAN(CNT) MIN(CNT) MAX(CNT) COUNT(*) -------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 18.72 19 3 28 415917 I recommend an 8k block size for the P6 transactional database. All of our internal performance and scalability test are done with this block size. This does not mean that other block sizes will not work. Instead, like many other parameters, this is the safest choice.

    Read the article

  • Catch test case order [on hold]

    - by DeadMG
    Can I guarantee the order of execution with multiple TEST_CASEs with Catch? I am testing some code using LLVM, and they have some despicable global state that I need to explicitly initialize. Right now I have one test case that's like this: TEST_CASE("", "") { // Initialize really shitty LLVM global variables. llvm::InitializeAllTargets(); llvm::InitializeAllTargetMCs(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmPrinters(); llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); llvm::InitializeAllAsmParsers(); // Some per-test setup I can make into its own function CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile(...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Compile...)); CHECK_NOTHROW(Interpret(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); CHECK_THROWS(Compile(...)); } What I want is to refactor it into three TEST_CASE, one for tests that should pass compilation, one for tests that should fail, and -one for tests that should pass interpretation (and in the future, further such divisions, perhaps). But I can't simply move the test contents into another TEST_CASE because if that TEST_CASE is called before the one that sets up the inconvenient globals, then they won't be initialized and the testing will spuriously fail.

    Read the article

  • Try/Catch or test parameters

    - by Ondra Morský
    I was recently on a job interview and I was given a task to write simple method in C# to calculate when the trains meet. The code was simple mathematical equation. What I did was that I checked all the parameters on the beginning of the method to make sure, that the code will not fail. My question is: Is it better to check the parameters, or use try/catch? Here are my thoughts: Try/catch is shorter Try/catch will work always even if you forget about some condition Catch is slow in .NET Testing parameters is probably cleaner code (Exceptions should be exceptional) Testing parameters gives you more control over return values I would prefer testing parameters in methods longer than +/- 10 lines, but what do you think about using try/catch in simple methods just like this – i.e. return (a*b)/(c+d); There are many similar questions on stackexchnage, but I am interested in this particular scenario.

    Read the article

  • Refactor instance declaration from try block to above try block in a method

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, Often I find myself coming across code like this: try { StreamWriter strw = new StreamWriter(); } However, there is no reference to the object outside the scope of the try block. How could I refactor (extract to field in Visual Studio says there is no field or something) the statement in the try block so that it is declared above the try block so I can use it anywhere in the method? Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >