News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by TickleSteve on Monday May 16, 2016 @05:27AM (#11705213)
Exceptions are the wrong model for embedded systems, generally if something exceptional happens, you need a reset. Attempting to "handle" exceptional cases is incorrect, a reset is the correct option.

Exceptions != normal program flow.

Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by tremon on Monday May 16, 2016 @06:24AM (#11705392)
You can divide embedded systems between industrial control systems and headless consumer devices, like set-top boxes or smart TVs. For the latter, you really don't want to invoke a device reset every time the input stream is malformed.
Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by TickleSteve on Monday May 16, 2016 @08:32AM (#11705838)
true, but I would not consider a set-top tv a true embedded system, rather a specialised user-facing system. So yes, you wouldn't reset a user facing system.

I would characterise embedded systems as those having to maintain functionality without user intervention.

(also, comms issues such as input stream errors are the normal program logic, i.e. defined error cases).

Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by TorKlingberg on Monday May 16, 2016 @06:43AM (#11705453)
That depends entirely on what your embedded system is doing.
Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by prashnts on Monday May 16, 2016 @06:09AM (#11705343)
True, however people who come from languages such as Python, where it is much common to handle exception rather than using `if else` checks. I think this is kind of stubbornness on dev's part not to change their coding patterns depending upon the platform.
Re:Size cost of C++ exception handling on embedded platforms by junke on Monday May 16, 2016 @07:26AM (#11705599)
Ada (Ravenscar profile) allows exceptions: http://www.sigada.org/ada_letters/jun2004/ravenscar_article....