From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,c80e6f742e73478f
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ensuring postconditions in the face of exceptions
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <5c8e9880-0ff0-4f8b-9dcc-bfde11a2de41@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <820d96c0-5d67-4b8c-8c5b-811ca4f1127e@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
	<8990d686-f703-4e9c-91b7-32410289983d@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<87ljdv56gy.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <hnjbst$hq2$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1268643365 27927 127.0.0.1 (15 Mar 2010 08:56:05
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:56:05 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197;
	posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
	Gecko/20100202 Firefox/3.5.8,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10539
Date: 2010-03-15T01:56:05-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting suggestion but we've patched the run-time library
> > so that it dumps core on every exception; we use exceptions only for
> > exceptional situations and dumping core freezes the system for 30
> > seconds to produce a file roughly 300 MiB in size. =A0So I would rather
> > not raise exceptions that are do not detect a bug.
>
> Let me see if I understand this correctly: Visit raises an exception, whi=
ch
> freezes the system for 30 s and writes a large file. Then you handle the
> exception, assign to Dirty, and re-raise the exception, again freezing th=
e
> system and writing the file.
>
> Is that how this is expected to work?

Not exactly because we've taken this situation into account when
patching the run-time library. It dumps core on the first exception
but not on re-raises, so re-raises are OK.

--
Ludovic Brenta.