Cost of having try-catch statements?
Tue Aug 10 17:08:00 GMT 2004
On Aug 10, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Harald Niesche wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> 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
>> > > unless your exception is thrown) and the handler itself, which
>> > > 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.
> Being curious, I tried a micro benchmark (Main.java, attached).
> The code just calls a method on an instance of class Main that then
> proceeds to call another method (that will never throw an exception,
> it simply increments a member to be not completely empty). In the
> first case there is nothing happening besides the second function
> being called, in the second case I have wrapped a try/catch around the
> The time given is how long it takes to execute 10,000,000 calls in a
> for loop. Each test is repeated twice before any measurement takes
Oh on windows this is because gcj (and g++) uses setjmp/longjmp to
so the overhead will be much higher than say on Linux or Mac OS X.
More information about the Java