> Most of the time, your exceptions are coming from low levels, like IO libraries, that don't know anything about the memory that you've allocated.

Yeah, but that's why you put exception handlers around anything that you expect to throw an exception, IO being a big one. Dealing with memory cleanup is definitely something that should be handled in the function allocating the memory.

So every function now needs a try/catch? Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose?

Every call to a function that can throw an exception should have a try/catch block, so that things can be properly cleaned up. Global exception handlers are seldom useful outside of reporting the existence of an error for future usage.

Kind of defeat the point of exceptions in the first place. It becomes more like an "enhance error return value" thing.

The thing about an exception is that you can't do about it in a number of scopes. When you encounter the exception you just just jump to the scope where you can do something about it.

In that case, wouldn't it be simpler to explicitly check for error return on every call to such a function, and eliminate the need for an exception mechanism?

But every function can potentially throw an exception...

That makes more sense. I assumed he meant to free memory before throwing the exception.

Good point, but then again, control over memory is kind of the C killer feature, so you should know how memory flows around in your program.

If you use libraries that use internal malloc'ed memory, etc, you have to clean at the exception call site by calling the library cleanup function.