This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Cost of having try-catch statements?

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Martin Egholm Nielsen <martin at egholm-nielsen dot dk>
Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:26:33 +0100
Subject: Re: Cost of having try-catch statements?
References: <cfan45$ghk$1@sea.gmane.org><16664.57901.752260.5036@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><cfapl3$ni6$1@sea.gmane.org>

Martin Egholm Nielsen writes:
 > >  > I was wondering: Is there any significant cost in having "unused" 
 > >  > try-catches in my code?
 > >  > That is, I have a method that 99.99% of the times invoked never throws a 
 > >  > given exception. However, in case it does, I need to log it...
 > > The only cost is the unwinder tables, (which are not read into memory
 > > unless your exception is thrown) and the handler itself, which may
 > > cause some instruction cache presure.
 > So practically no overhead?

That's the idea.  Really, if there is any significant overhead for an
unused handler that would be a bug.

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cost of having try-catch statements?
  - From: Harald Niesche

References:
- Cost of having try-catch statements?
  - From: Martin Egholm Nielsen
- Cost of having try-catch statements?
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Cost of having try-catch statements?
  - From: Martin Egholm Nielsen

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]