Re: Cost of having try-catch statements?

[Martin Egholm Nielsen <martin at egholm-nielsen dot dk>]

Hi there,

> > > > > > 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.
Great... I wouldn't like changing good coding manner...

> > This seems to indicate that in both gcj and J2SDK1.4.2_04 on 
> > Windows there is significant overhead. (And that the Sun JVM seems 
> > to be 4 times faster at this contrived "benchmark").
> Ah yes, Windows still uses longjmp.
> Similar hardware, Linux:
> without try/catch 207ms with try/catch 227ms without try/catch 202ms
>  with try/catch 209ms
Perfect, I'm running Linux on a PPC405! Thanks _alot_ for the answers...

Regards,
 Martin Egholm