I got a recursive call to a methode that throw a stack overflow exception. The first call is surrounded by a try catch block but the exception is not caught.
Do the stack overflow exception behave in a special way ? Can I catch/handle properly the exception ?
NB : if relevant :
the exception is not thrown in the main thread
the object where the code is throwing the exception is manually loaded by Assembly.LoadFrom(...).CreateInstance(...)
Starting with 2.0 a StackOverflow Exception can only be caught in the following circumstances.
Starting with 2.0 ..., I'm curios, what is preventing them from catching SO and how it was possible 1.1 (you mentioned that in your comment)? - M.kazem Akhgary
The right way is to fix the overflow, but....
You can give yourself a bigger stack:-
using System.Threading;
Thread T = new Thread(threadDelegate, stackSizeInBytes);
T.Start();
You can use System.Diagnostics.StackTrace FrameCount property to count the frames you've used and throw your own exception when a frame limit is reached.
Or, you can calculate the size of the stack remaining and throw your own exception when it falls below a threshold:-
class Program
{
static int n;
static int topOfStack;
const int stackSize = 1000000; // Default?
// The func is 76 bytes, but we need space to unwind the exception.
const int spaceRequired = 18*1024;
unsafe static void Main(string[] args)
{
int var;
topOfStack = (int)&var;
n=0;
recurse();
}
unsafe static void recurse()
{
int remaining;
remaining = stackSize - (topOfStack - (int)&remaining);
if (remaining < spaceRequired)
throw new Exception("Cheese");
n++;
recurse();
}
}
Just catch the Cheese. ;)
Cheese is far from specific. I'd go for throw new CheeseException("Gouda"); - C.Evenhuis
From the MSDN page on StackOverflowExceptions:
In prior versions of the .NET Framework, your application could catch a StackOverflowException object (for example, to recover from unbounded recursion). However, that practice is currently discouraged because significant additional code is required to reliably catch a stack overflow exception and continue program execution.
Starting with the .NET Framework version 2.0, a StackOverflowException object cannot be caught by a try-catch block and the corresponding process is terminated by default. Consequently, users are advised to write their code to detect and prevent a stack overflow. For example, if your application depends on recursion, use a counter or a state condition to terminate the recursive loop. Note that an application that hosts the common language runtime (CLR) can specify that the CLR unload the application domain where the stack overflow exception occurs and let the corresponding process continue. For more information, see ICLRPolicyManager Interface and Hosting the Common Language Runtime.
As several users have already said, you can't catch the exception. However, if you're struggling to find out where it's happening, you may want to configure visual studio to break when it's thrown.
To do that, you need to open Exception Settings from the 'Debug' menu. In older versions of Visual Studio, this is at 'Debug' - 'Exceptions'; in newer versions, it's at 'Debug' - 'Windows' - 'Exception Settings'.
Once you have the settings open, expand 'Common Language Runtime Exceptions', expand 'System', scroll down and check 'System.StackOverflowException'. Then you can look at the call stack and look for the repeating pattern of calls. That should give you an idea of where to look to fix the code that's causing the stack overflow.
As mentioned above several times, it's not possible to catch a StackOverflowException that was raised by the System due to corrupted process-state. But there's a way to notice the exception as an event:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.appdomain.unhandledexception.aspxStarting with the .NET Framework version 4, this event is not raised for exceptions that corrupt the state of the process, such as stack overflows or access violations, unless the event handler is security-critical and has the HandleProcessCorruptedStateExceptionsAttribute attribute.
Nevertheless your application will terminate after exiting the event-function (a VERY dirty workaround, was to restart the app within this event haha, havn't done so and never will do). But it's good enough for logging!
In the .NET Framework versions 1.0 and 1.1, an unhandled exception that occurs in a thread other than the main application thread is caught by the runtime and therefore does not cause the application to terminate. Thus, it is possible for the UnhandledException event to be raised without the application terminating. Starting with the .NET Framework version 2.0, this backstop for unhandled exceptions in child threads was removed, because the cumulative effect of such silent failures included performance degradation, corrupted data, and lockups, all of which were difficult to debug. For more information, including a list of cases in which the runtime does not terminate, see Exceptions in Managed Threads.
Yes from CLR 2.0 stack overflow is considered a non-recoverable situation. So the runtime still shut down the process.
For details please see the documentation http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.stackoverflowexception.aspx
StackOverflowException terminates the process by default. - Brian Rasmussen
You can't. The CLR won't let you. A stack overflow is a fatal error and can't be recovered from.
You can't as most of the posts are explaining, let me add another area:
On many websites you will find people saying that the way to avoid this is using a different AppDomain so if this happens the domain will be unloaded. That is absolutely wrong (unless you host your CLR) as the default behavior of the CLR will raise a KillProcess event, bringing down your default AppDomain.
It's impossible, and for a good reason (for one, think about all those catch(Exception){} around).
If you want to continue execution after stack overflow, run dangerous code in a different AppDomain. CLR policies can be set to terminate current AppDomain on overflow without affecting original domain.
Assert.Failinstead. So seriously -- how do we go about this? - BrainSlugs83