在没有活动异常的情况下调用终止（引发捕获所有表达式）

Question

I have a code block like this:

namespace bi = boost::intrusive;

struct Container {
    struct Item {
        bi::set_member_hook<> link;
        int x;
    };

    struct Cmp {
        bool opeartor()(Item const& it1, Item const &it2) const {
            return it1.x < it2.x;
        }
    };
    using Set = typename bi::set<Item,
                            bi::member_hook<Item, bi::set_member_hook<>, &Item::link>,
                            bi::compare<Cmp>,
                            bi::constant_time_size<false>
                            >;



    Container(Container const& o) {
        auto cloner = [](const Item &x) {
            return current_allocator().construct<Item>(x);
        };

        with_allocator(_alloctor, [&] {
            new (&_data) Set;

            _data.clone_from(o._data, cloner, current_deleter<Item>());
        }
    }


private:
    Set _data;
};

The program sometime terminated with this message:

terminate called without an active exception

I found an answer from stackoverflow that because of throw was called without an active exception. But if without an active exception, then it can not reach the catch block.

I'm sorry for my bad English

EDIT: The code example was updated.

EDIT 2: Correct the code as @:RemyLebeau recommended, and the bug still happen.

Answer 1

I think the message

terminate called without an active exception

actually takes to mean

terminate called without an active C++ exception

terminate() may be called for many different reasons, not limited to unhandled C++ exceptions. The catch (...) clause only catches C++ exceptions. In your particular case, terminate() may be called within allocate_memory() or clone() directly, or by runtime due to unhandled non-C++ exceptions (like some low-level Windows exceptions that should be captured with SEH ). In either case, the catch block is never entered.

Answer 2

You have called throw from catch but the catch was supposed to catch it. The throw should have been in try instead if I understood it correctly.