Delphi -make a function available to other forms beside mainform - delphi

I use a function to log application errors to a file.I have it on my main form.How do I tell my other forms, in case of an error,to use this function? Just by chance I added this to my query on some other form:
......
try
ClientDataSet1.Execute;
ClientDataSet1.Close;
except
on E:Exception do begin
ShowMessage('Error : ' + E.Message);
LogError(E);
....
My LogError(E); is not recognized (gives error). Tried adding the function :procedure LogError(E:Exception); to public uses but wont work.

Structured Exception Handling
I'd like to point out that your approach to exception handling is very tedious and wasteful coding. Not to mention quite dangerous. You don't want to be littering your code with individual handlers to log your exceptions when there's a much more practical approach.
Fortunately Delphi provides the means to make this much easier. First a little background about structured exception handling... Most developers make the mistake of trying to deal with errors by writing code like the following:
try
//Do Something
except
//Show Error
//Log Error
end;
The problem with the above code is that it swallows the error. Even though the user sees an error message, the error itself is hidden from the rest of the program. This can result in other parts of the program doing things they should not do because of the error.
Imagine a program that calls the following routines: LoadAccount; ApplyDiscount; ProcessPayment;. But the the first routine raises an error. Which a programmer (mistakenly thinking they're being diligent) decided to "handle" as above. The problem is that the next two routines will still be called as if nothing is wrong! This could mean that a discount is applied to and payment processed for the wrong account!
The point is that structured exception handling saves us from these headaches (provided we don't break the way it works). If the LoadAccount routine didn't try "handle" the exception, then while the application is in an "exception state" the code would simply keep jumping out of routines until it finds a finally / except handler.
This suits an event driven program very nicely.
Suppose a user clicks a button that will cause your program to start a multi-step task: with loops, calls to child methods, creating objects etc. If anything goes wrong, you want to abandon the entire task and wait for the next input. You don't want to stubbornly keep trying to complete the task; because you'll either just get more errors, or worse: later changes will do the wrong thing because earlier required steps did not complete successfully.
Easy Logging of Errors
As mentioned earlier, if you simply leave an exception alone, the error will "bubble up" to an outer exception handler. And in a standard GUI application, that will be the default Application exception handler.
In fact at this stage, doing nothing special: if an exception is raised in the middle of the button click task described earlier, the default exception handler will show an error message to the user. The only thing missing is the logging. Fortunately, Delphi makes it easy for you to intercept the default Application exception handler. So you can provide your own implementation, and log the error as you desire.
All you need to do is:
Write a method using the TExceptionEvent signature.
E.g. procedure MyHandleException(ASender: TObject; E: Exception);.
Then assign your custom handler using: Application.OnException := MyHandleException;
General Logging
Of course, this only covers logging of exceptions. If you want to do any other ad-hoc logging, you want to be able to reuse the code. This basically requires you to move your logging code into a separate unit that all your other units can call as needed.
So putting these things together you might do something as follows:
TLogger = class
public
procedure WriteToLog(S: string); //Performs actual logging of given string
procedure HandleException(ASender: TObject; E: Exception); //Calls WriteToLog
end;
Then you might set it up in your program unit as follows:
begin
Logger := TLogger.Create(...);
Application.OnException := Logger.HandleException;
Logger.WriteToLog('Custom exception handler has been assigned.');
//Rest of application startup code
end;
Final Thoughts
I mentioned that if an unexpected exception occurs, you want to abandon the current task. But what happens if you've already done some things that should now be undone as a result of the error. Then you would simply implement it as follows:
try
//Do something
except
//Undo
raise; //NOTE: more often than not, one should re-raise an
//exception so that callers are aware of the error.
end;
Note that this is the primary use for exception handlers. Yes they can also be used to swallow exceptions. But they should only swallow an exception if it has been truly resolved.

While Delphi is object-oriented language, it can deal with non-OO entities as well.
Think, your main form is property of which form ?
The answer is that main form is not the property of ANY other form, it is a global object. Same exactly thing should be done about your function.
unit Main;
interface uses .......;
type TMainForm = class (TForm)....
....
end;
Procedure LogError(const message: string);
implementation uses .....;
Procedure LogError(const message: string);
begin
...
end;
(**********)
procedure TMainForm.FormCreate(...);
begin
....
end;
...
end.
Now even better option would be to totally decouple LogError from ANY form at all.
Unit MyLogger;
interface uses ....; // but does not uses Main or any other form
procedure SetupLog(....);
// to initialize it and change any settings you may wish
// maybe you would choose to save messages to file
// or use Windows debug interface - OutputDebugString
// or to a network SysLog server
// or just WriteLn it to a text window
// or to some TMemo in a graphic window
// or to file AND to a memo - that also might make sense.
// just keep it extensible
Procedure LogWarning(const message: string);
Procedure LogError(const message: string);
implementation uses ...;
function GenericLoggingSink(.....);
begin
...
end;
Procedure LogError(const message: string);
begin
GenericLoggingSink( Log_Message_Type_Error, message, ... );
end;
Procedure LogWarning(const message: string);
begin
GenericLoggingSink( Log_Message_Type_Warning, message, ... );
end;
And your Main form should just use this unit and this function on the same terms as all other forms in your application.
As part three I suggest you think what you want from your logging procedures.
Actually doing this only makes sense for very simplistic logging needs. Very simplistic.
Otherwise just take any existing Delphi logging frameworks and utilize a lot of functionality implemented there. For example can you just log an object of any class you would write?
The only reason to make your own logging library is "my program is so simplistic, that it does need only the most primitive logging. It would be faster to improvise my own system, than to copy-paste library initialization and setup from examples to a ready-made libraries".
Log4Delphi and Log4D are well-known FLOSS libraries, though they look somewhat abandoned. Maybe there just is nothing left to be extended. Those are most old ones, but there also are some newer FLOSS libraries, an easy example being http://blog.synopse.info/post/2013/02/03/Log-to-the-console
If anything, you can read their texts and learn from them.
There are also commercial libraries like those listed at Is there a way to do normal logging with EureakLog? and Delphi itself is shipped with a limited version of CodeSite logging framework.
Delphi IDE enhancements like CnWizards and GExperts also do come with a simplified debug-oriented logging interface.
Google would bring you even more options if you'd dare :-)

Related

Raising exceptions is not showing messages

I am struggling with something I have always perceived as something straightforward, but apparently I am missing something in this case.
I am using Delphi Seattle.
In part of my program I have a certain main calculation (a loop) that repeatedly calls a sub-calculation. In certain cases the sub-calculation result will go towards infinity and cause a floating point overflow exception. I cannot predict this, nor can I define / trap an acceptable maximum value (depends on case) so I need to trap the overflow exception, notify the user and abort the calculation.
I have simplified this calculation to the following example program. The code itself is nonsense of course but the point is to force an overflow exception in a similar program structure as my real application.
type
TForm1 = class(TForm)
Button1: TButton;
procedure Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
function MainCalculation: boolean;
function SubCalculation(AFloatingPoint: Double): Double;
public
{ Public declarations }
end;
.........
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
if MainCalculation then
ShowMessage('Calculation succeeded.')
else
ShowMessage('Calculation failed.');
end;
function TForm1.MainCalculation: boolean;
var
ii: Integer;
dd: Double;
begin
try
dd := 1E200;
for ii := 1 to 100 do
dd := dd * SubCalculation(dd);
except
raise Exception.Create('Error in main calculation.');
end;
end;
function TForm1.SubCalculation(AFloatingPoint: Double): Double;
begin
try
result := Power(AFloatingPoint, AFloatingPoint);
except
raise Exception.Create('Error in sub-calculation.');
end;
end;
Running from the debugger, I get three Debugger Exception Notifications:
Exception class $C0000091 (floating point overflow)
Exception in sub-calculation
Exception in main calculation
However, only the last one is shown to the user as an exception.
In my real application it's even worse. When I run the application and the overflow exception occurs, nothing is shown to the user and the (main) calculation just aborts with partial results.
Can anybody explain to me why I don't get the two exceptions raised (as I would expect)? Is there a specific setting somewhere that causes the overflow exception to be treated different? Any suggestion to help me forward will be highly appreciated. Of course, I'll be more than happy to provide additional details, should this be required.
Thanks in advance!
Mark
I don't think there' a misunderstanding on the concept of what an exception is. It's merely that raising a standard Exception (i. e. not an EMyCustomException) with a specific message is not shown to the end-user once it's "nested".
You do have a misunderstanding of some aspects of exceptions. I suspect you correctly understand how they affect code-flow (an area most people struggle with). But any expectation that they will show messages indicates a huge misunderstanding.
Note that it would be fundamentally incorrect for exceptions to in any way automatically display the exception message because if the app runs on an unattended server, the last thing you want is dialogs popping up on screen waiting for a non-existent user to close them.
Even on a front-end, it would be a horrible user experience to display a long chain of exception messages for each and every negative consequence side-effect you choose to report in a boiler-plate (DRY violating) try...except block.
The only time any exception message will be displayed is when code explicitly calls something to do so
E.g.: ShowMessage(SomeException.Message);
or Application.ShowException(SomeException.Message);
You also asked:
but if "raise Exception.Create..." is not meant to display anything, then why does the outer level?
I can see why you might think that; but this is exactly the misunderstanding referred to earlier...
The outer level raise Exception.Create('Some Message'); does NOT display any message. The Delphi framework has its own try...except block which catches the outer level exception, and by default will show the message and class of the exception. You could override the default handler to display a different message or use a different dialog, or not display anything, and simply log the message.
As an exercise, you may want to step through vcl/rtl code using a debugger to see this in action. The source code that ships with Delphi may seem intimidating, but studying that code is an excellent way to learn.
Suggested further reading
RAD Studio Exceptions (link goes directly to Nested Exceptions; but read the whole page)
TApplication.OnException (a similar feature exists for FMX)
TCustomApplicationEvents.OnException
Obviously and understandably you have a concern about tracking information at each exception handler. This is good; but the way you're trying to go about it is flawed. I suggest you read up on the following poss-dups:
How should I re-raise a Delphi exception after logging it?
What is the correct way to nest exceptions? - Using Delphi
I also recommend you consider using an exception handling framework. I'm not sure of the current state of the following, but they're all worth investigating:
Mad Except
Exceptional Magic
Eureka
Jcl Debug
Note that tools like those above are able to generate a call-stack which provides a full chain of calls leading to the trigger exception. Combine this with general trace logging and you have a powerful set of tools to fully investigate most typical errors.
In general you don't want to be writing a large number of try...except blocks. They really should be the (ahem) "exception to the rule".
Side note: Acknowledging your code is merely a sample...
I must point out that as it stands, your question code is seriously flawed. You fail to guarantee the Result of MainCalculation will be initialised no matter if/where an exception might occur and whether or not it's swallowed. You need to be very careful of this to avoid returning the wrong value to callers such as ButtonClick.
The last thing you want is callers incorrectly assuming a failed calculation succeeded or vice-versa. (This is a benefit of the structured exception model and not writing lots of exception handlers.)
Use sysUtils.abort("silent exception")

how do i create Tstrings with onchange event?

i know how to make Tstringlist onchange event , but what about Tstrings ? i dont want to use VCL like tmemo or something . can i do that ? is it possible to have this event on tstrings and do something when its changed ?
i tried to do something like this but got access violation
//on form show event
stringlist:= TStringList.Create;
stringlist.OnChange := HandleStringListChange;
//implantation
procedure TChatFo.HandleStringListChange(Sender: tObject);
begin
if stringlist.Text <> '' then
ProcessCommands(stringlist.Text);
stringlist.Clear;
end;
exception messages
Project Project1.exe raised exception class $C0000005 with message
'access violation at 0x6d40c92c: read of address 0x00000150'.
Project Project1.exe raised exception class EStringListError with
message 'List index out of bounds (5)'.
Project Project1.exe raised exception class EStringListError with
message 'List index out of bounds (5)'.
this tstringlist should work as command identifier i creat it with my thread
as example
type
TReadingThread = class(TThread)
protected
FConnection : TIdTCPConnection;
FLogResult : TStrings;
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(AConn: TIdTCPConnection; ALogResult: TStrings); reintroduce;
end;
ListeningThread := TReadingThread.Create( TCPClient, stringlist);
constructor TReadingThread.Create(AConn: TIdTCPConnection; ALogResult: TStrings);
begin
FConnection := AConn;
FLogResult := ALogResult;
inherited Create(False);
end;
procedure TReadingThread.Execute;
Var
strData : String;
begin
while not Terminated do
begin
try
strData := FConnection.IOHandler.ReadLn;
if strData <> '' then
begin
FLogResult.Add( strData );
end;
except
on E: Exception do
begin
FConnection.Disconnect(False);
if FConnection.IOHandler <> nil
then FConnection.IOHandler.InputBuffer.Clear;
Break;
end;
end;
Sleep(10);
end; // While
end;
if i use Tmemo no errors or exception happened.
We're all shooting in the dark here because you haven't provided all the relevant code. That said, the information you have provided has a lot of problems, and I can offer advice to help you solve it.
Debugging 101
Run your code through the IDE. When you get your exception, the debugger stops at the line that caused the exception.
This is usually the most important step in figuring out what went wrong. You have access to this information. Run your program and carefully look at the line that raised the error. You might be able to already figure what caused the error. If not, a other basic techniques can be applied to get more information:
Get values of objects and variables on the error line and other close lines. You can hover your mouse cursor to get tool-tips, or press Ctrl + F7.
You can examine the call stack of lines leading to the one that caused the error by double-clicking the previous line in the call-stack.
Put a breakpoint on the line before the error and re-run the app. The debugger will stop on that line and give you a chance to check values as explained earlier, but before the error happens.
Asking for help 101
Getting help from people is much more effective when you give them all the relevant information. For a start, the line of code where the access violation occurs would be extremely useful.... Tell us!
Give us real code.
Saying "I tried to do something like this" is not particularly useful. Please copy and paste exactly what you tried. If your code is different, your mistake might no longer be there.
Access Violations
You get an access violation in the following situations:
You forgot to create the object you want to use or didn't assign it to the appropriate variable.
You created the object but Destroyed or Freed it already before trying to use it again.
You changed the variable that was referencing the object.
You performed a 'hard-cast' (or unchecked typecast) from one type to an incompatible type.
The above are the basics. There some variations, and a few special edge cases, but these account for the vast majority of mistakes.
So using the above, that's what you need to check. If you had copy-pasted more of your code, we might be able to see what you did wrong.
NOTE: One shot-in-the-dark possibility is that you are destroying your string list in the wrong place. And perhaps the memo works because as a component dropped on the form, you're not trying to destroy it.
Stack overflow
Let's examine what happens in your OnChange event when for example a string is added:
The event fires.
Text is not empty.
So you call ProcessCommands
You then call Clear
The the end of Clear, Changed is called again.
Which fires your event again.
This time Text is empty, so you won't call ProcessCommands
But you do try to Clear the string list again...
This could go on forever; well at least until the call-stack runs out of space and you get a stack-overflow error.
Saved by the bell
The only reason you don't get a stack overflow is because Clear doesn't do anything if the string list is empty:
procedure TStringList.Clear;
begin
if FCount <> 0 then //You're lucky these 2 lines stop your stack-overflow
begin
...
FCount := 0; //You're lucky these 2 lines stop your stack-overflow
SetCapacity(0);
Changed;
end;
end;
I suggest you rethink how to solve you problem because code that leads to unintentional recursion is going to make your life difficult.
Working with threads
You really need to get a handle on the basics of programming before trying to work with threads. Multi-threaded programming throws in a huge amount of complexity.
I can already see a huge possibility of one potential mistake. (Though it depends what you're doing inside ProcessCommands.)
You modify your string list in the context of a thread.
This means your OnChange event handler also fires in the context of the thread. (The fact it's implemented on the form is irrelevant.)
If your ProcessCommands method does anything that requires it to operate on the main thread, you're going to encounter problems.
As a final consideration, I've noted quite a few beginner programmers completely miss the point that code starting a thread can finish before the thread does. E.g. (Going back to the topic on Access Violations.): If you're destroying your string list soon after creating your thread, your thread could suddenly throw an access violation when the object it had earlier is suddenly gone.
The likely explanation for your error is that you are modifying the list in its OnChange event handler. That is simply not allowed. An OnChange handler must not mutate the state of the object.
What is happening is that you have some other code, that we cannot see, that modifies the list, perhaps in a loop. As it modifies the list your event handler clears the list and then the calling code has had the rug pulled from underneath it.
Of course, I'm having to guess here since you did not show complete code. Perhaps the specifics vary somewhat but it seems likely that this is the root of your problem.
You'll need to find another way to solve your problem. With the information available we cannot suggest how to do that.
Looking at your updated code, there's no need for a string list at all. Remove it completely. Instead, where you do:
FLogResult.Add( strData );
do this:
ProcessCommands( strData );
TStrings is an abstract class, ancestor of TStringList. You can create an instance of TStringList and use it as a TStrings.

Trapping ADO Provider cannot be found error in Delphi

I have an application written in Delphi that uses an iSeries ODBC connection.
There are some workstations where I do not want to install the iSeries software, and on these workstations, I won't be updating any of these databases anyway.
Is there a way I can trap when this error message is generated? At that point, I can just set a variable like NoUpload to true and not allow the connection on the workstation.
It appears to happen before I ever attempt to even open one of the tables - just by having the ConnectionString set when the application starts fires the message.
Thanks in advance!
You can check the existing ADO providers of the system with ADODB.GetProviderNames
Ideally, you should look for an option to check your condition without an exception being raised. So Sir Rufo's answer is a good place to start.
Another option might be to not include the Provider in the ConnectionString, but set it independently via the Provider property at run-time (most likely only after confirming that it's supported).
However, since you mentioned you're getting an exception before you even attempt to open a table, there are a few things to check (assuming you've been setting up your components at design time):
Have any data sets accidentally been left Active at design time?
Has the Connection been left active at design time?
Are there any options in the ConnectionString that could immediately trigger the error?
Failing the above you could provide a hook for application exceptions. (And really more of a last ditch effort.)
Declare a handler method using with the following signature: TExceptionEvent = procedure (Sender: TObject; E: Exception) of object;. And assign it to Application.OnException. E.g.
procedure Handle(ASender: TObject; E: Exception);
begin
if ISeriesNotInstalledError(E) then
begin
FNoUpload := True;
end
else
begin
Application.ShowException(E);
end;
end;
NOTE: There are some important considerations in following this approach. Since you see this as a standard Use Case, you don't want to be bothering your users with messages. This is also much better than a localised exception handler (a common programming error) because if a caller routine triggers this error you don't want the caller to mistakenly run as if nothing went wrong; when quite clearly something did.

Disable exception handling and let windows catch it?

I want to disable the exception catching by Delphi and let Windows catch it - making it produce a window like "AppName crashed. Debug , Send", add this to Application events, create a memory dump and so on.
By default, Delphi catches all the exception in TApplication.Run procedure... How can I avoid that without modifying Forms.pas?
You could add an OnException handler that re-raised the exception:
class procedure TMainForm.OnException(Sender: TObject; E: Exception);
begin
raise Exception(AcquireExceptionObject);
end;
initialization
Application.OnException := TMainForm.OnException;
I'm not sure why you would want to do this at all though. It's more normal to use a tool like madExcept or EurekaLog to show an error dialog that yields much more helpful information than the system dialog.
You can set JITEnable to '1' or higher (default is '0'). With '1', non native exceptions, with higher than '1', all exceptions will be handled by JIT or WER (depending on the system).
This may not be what you want though. With this solution any qualifying exception will be passed to the OS, it doesn't matter if they're handled in code or not. Clarification (run outside the debugger):
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
raise EAccessViolation.Create('access denied');
end;
procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
try
PInteger(0)^ := 0;
except
end;
end;
initialization
JITEnable := 1;
The first example is a native exception, it will be handled by the application exception handling mechanism when JITEnable is 1. But the second example will trigger JIT/WER.
Add your own handler. Application.OnException is probably what you want. Better than leaving it up to windows as well, as you get different behaviours depending on the environment. For instance if windows error reporting is on, it will ask the user if they want to send an error report to MS.
Like Mr Heffernan I recommend you look at something like EurekaLog.
AS. I agree with voices above that this wish is rather strange.
I also agree that practically hooking in TApplication.OnException would probably be enough ("if it looks like a duck...")
However if you truly want to make RTL oblivious to exceptions, there are ways too.
Exception handlers are plugin to low-level RTL, just like heap management, etc.
You can look at KOL (Key Objects Library).
In Delphi 5 times i managed to make 2KB-size DLL.
That required absense of many usualyl taken "for granted" features. Exception were among them.
To enable Exceptions in KOL's system RTL replacement, you had to make some $DEFINE's, and then the code to add exceptions support to IDE was unlocked.
I believe you can still get that modularized RTL version and grep for that $IfDef and see which code is replaced with which.
I believe there is fair chance you can undo that and make Windows avoid calling Delphi RTL over Exceptions.
I don't remember details, but i believe Delphi RTL Exception handler is just registered in Windows core as a callback. And you probably can de-register it (register nil callback).
I believe you can find it in stock RTL, but KOL's modularised RTL would just make it easier to search.

It is possible to resume execution from the point where an exception was raised?

There is an example which illustrates my question:
procedure Test;
begin
try
ShowMessage('1');
raise EWarning.Create(12345, 'Warning: something is happens!');
ShowMessage('2');
except
on E: EWarning do
if IWantToContinue(E.ErrorCode) then
E.SkipThisWarning // shows '1' then '2'
else
E.StopExecution; // shows '1'
end;
end;
function IWantToContinue(const ErrorCode: Integer): Boolean;
begin
//...
end;
I tried to use something like this:
asm
jmp ExceptAddr
end;
but it's wont' work...
Any ideas?
Thanks.
No, it is not possible:
There are two kinds of exceptions: logic exceptions that are raised by the programmer using the raise command, and external exceptions that are initiated by the CPU for various conditions: division by zero, stack overflow, access violation. For the first kind, the logic exceptions, there's nothing you can do because they're part of the application "flow". You can't mess with the flow of 3rd party code, you can't even mess with the flow of your own code.
External exceptions
Those are normally raised as a consequence of running a single CPU instruction, when that instruction fails. In Delphi those are made available as EExternal descendants. The list includes access violations, division by zero, stack overflow, privileged instruction and not-so-many others. Theoretically, for some of those exceptions, the causing condition of the exception could be removed and the single CPU instruction retried, allowing the original code to continue as if no error happened. For example SOME access violations might be "fixed" by actually mapping a page of RAM at the address where the error occurred.
There are provisions in the SEH (Structured Exception Handling) mechanism provided by Windows for dealing with such retry-able errors, and Delphi is using SEH under the hood. Unfortunately Delphi doesn't expose the required elements to make this easily accessible, so using them would be very difficult if not impossible. None the less, for particular types of EExternal errors, smart Delphinians might attempt writing custom SEH code and get things working. If that's the case, please ask a new question mentioning the particular type of error you're getting plus the steps you'd like to take to remove the error condition: you'll either get some working code or a customized explanation of why your idea would not work.
Logic exceptions initiated through the use of raise
Most exceptions fall into this category, because most code will check it's inputs before doing potentially dangerous low level stuff. For example, when trying to access an invalid index in a TList, the index would be checked and an invalid index exception raised before attempting to access the requested index. Without the check, accessing the invalid index would either return invalid data or raise an Access Violation. Both of those conditions would be very hard to track errors, so the invalid index exception is a very good thing. For the sake of this question, even if code were allowed to access an invalid index, causing an Access Violation, it would be impossible to "fix" the code and continue, because there's no way to guess what the correct index should be.
In other words, fixing "logic" exceptions doesn't work, shouldn't work, and it's insanely dangerous. If the code that raises the error is yours then you can simply restructure it to NOT raise exceptions for warnings. If that's not your code, then continuing the exception falls into the "insanely dangerous" category (not to mention it's technically not possible). When looking at already written code, ask yourself: would the code behave properly if the raise Exeption were replaced with ShowMessage? The answer should mostly be "NO, the code would fail anyway". For the very rare, very wrong case of 3rd party code that raises an exception for no good reason, you may ask for specific help on patching the code at run-time to NEVER raise the exception.
Here's what could be in some 3rd party code:
function ThirdPartyCode(A, B: Integer): Integer;
begin
if B = 0 then raise Exception.Create('Division by zero is not possible, you called ThirdPartyCode with B=0!');
Result := A div B;
end;
It should be obvious that continuing that code after the exception is not going to allow stuff to "self heal".
Third party code might also look like this:
procedure DoSomeStuff;
begin
if SomeCondition then
begin
// do useful stuff
end
else
raise Exception.Create('Ooops.');
end;
Where would that code "continue"? Quite obviously not the "do usefull stuff" part, unless the code is specifically designed that way.
Those were, of course, simple examples only scratching the surface. From a technical perspective, "continuing" after an exception as you're suggesting is a lot more difficult then jumping to the address of the error. Method calls use stack space to set up local variables. That space was released in the process of "rolling back" after the error, on the way to your exception handler. finally blocks were executed, possibly de-allocating resources where needed. Jumping back to the originating address would be very wrong, because the calling code no longer has what it expects on stack, it's local variables are no longer what they're ment to be.
If it's your code that's raising the exception
Your code can easily be fixed. Use something like this:
procedure Warning(const ErrorText:string);
begin
if not UserWantsToContinue(ErrorText) then
raise Exception.Create(ErrorText);
end;
// in your raising code, replace:
raise Exception.Create('Some Text');
// with:
Warning('Some Text');
AFAIK no. You have to restructure your code to something like
procedure Test;
begin
ShowMessage('1');
try
raise EWarning.Create(12345, 'Warning: something is happens!');
except
on E: EWarning do
if IWantToContinue(E.ErrorCode) then
// shows '1' then '2'
else
raise; // shows '1'
end;
ShowMessage('2');
end;
In C++, it is possible using an SEH __try/__except block whose __except expression evaluates to EXCEPTION_CONTINUE_EXECUTION.
In Delphi, it is not possible to use SEH directly, AFAIK.
BASICally, your code wont work because ExceptAddr is a function, not a variable. So, your code snippet changes as follows:
{$O-}
procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
try
OutputDebugString('entering');
raise Exception.Create('Error Message');
OutputDebugString('leaving');
except on E: Exception do
begin
OutputDebugString(PChar(Format('ExceptAddr = %p', [ExceptAddr])));
asm
CALL ExceptAddr
JMP EAX
end;
end;
end;
end;
..you could nest multiple try-except and determine if continue inside each exception:
try
try
some code
except
ret := message('want to continue?');
if ret <> mrYes then
exit;
end;
some other code to perform when no exception or user choose to continue
except
etc..
end;

Resources