This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

Try

Catch ex As SpontaneousException
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

How about the fact there is NO code inside the Try block? 

MasterPlanSoftware:

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

How about the fact there is NO code inside the Try block?

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

No, the WTF is that it's in VB.</obligatory>

Actually, I've seen this many times in boilerplate templates, which assume you are going to write something inside the try block.  So, actually, yes; the most WTF part is that they don't re-throw properly.

joe.edwards@imaginuity.com:

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

No, the WTF is that it's in VB.</obligatory>

Actually, I've seen this many times in boilerplate templates, which assume you are going to write something inside the try block.  So, actually, yes; the most WTF part is that they don't re-throw properly.

I agree. Looks like somebody just inserted a snippet on Visual Studio meaning to do something there, then forgot to take it out.

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

 Widely-believed fact: In cases like this, the CLR inserts a "throw" instruction out of spite
 

jcoehoorn:

Let's have a little contest:  Who can write the most code that will compile to no instructions?

Excellent WTF coding challenge right there.  Comments don't count, and no repeating.  I think C might be a good place to start, with the help of GCC's optimization options. 

MasterPlanSoftware:

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

 

How about the fact there is NO code inside the Try block?

Are you implying it would be OK if there was also no code inside the Catch block?

MasterPlanSoftware:

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

 

How about the fact there is NO code inside the Try block?

But what if the no code inside the Try block was using an sNOP instead of a qNOP?

DaveK:

MasterPlanSoftware:

Random832:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

So... the WTF is that they didn’t just re-throw with “Throw”, right?

 

How about the fact there is NO code inside the Try block?

Are you implying it would be OK if there was also no code inside the Catch block?

Only if you subscribe to the "On Error Resume Next" pattern.

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

Try

Catch ex As Exception
    Throw ex

Finally

End Try

This is no big deal.  I use CodeRush and it stubs out a bunch of code for me.  If I'm rockin', like if I'm in the zone, I'll type "tc" and BAMB!  There is my try-catch-block all ready to go.  And sometimes I won't refactor as well as I should, and leave this stuff around.  That is, when I'm not unemployed.

So I have say that this is not a WTF.  Nothing personal.

TunnelRat:

djork:

This is actually, for real, totally serious, not joking, straight code from our production application. Absolutely nothing was changed in this snippet.

TryCatch ex As Exception    Throw exFinallyEnd Try

This is no big deal.  I use CodeRush and it stubs out a bunch of code for me.  If I'm rockin', like if I'm in the zone, I'll type "tc" and BAMB!  There is my try-catch-block all ready to go.  And sometimes I won't refactor as well as I should, and leave this stuff around.  That is, when I'm not unemployed.

So I have say that this is not a WTF.  Nothing personal.

So you leave stubs that eliminate the stack during an exception all over your code?

 Brilliant!

djork:

jcoehoorn:

Let's have a little contest:  Who can write the most code that will compile to no instructions?

Excellent WTF coding challenge right there.  Comments don't count, and no repeating.  I think C might be a good place to start, with the help of GCC's optimization options. 

Wouldn't that be a rather easy challange?

if (false) {
    // Insert arbitrary amounts of code here
}
 

If that's the extent of the program, will the compiler allow it to compile to no instructions?

Also, I'm sure there'd be some hideous means to get the code in such a block to execute. Don't know what mind. 

m0ffx:

If that's the extent of the program, will the compiler allow it to compile to no instructions?

I think so. At least the object files are of the same size....

[erich@iTux ~]$ cat test1.c
#include <stdio.h>
int nix() {
        if (0) {
                printf("Nix");
        }
}
[erich@iTux ~]$ cat test2.c
#include <stdio.h>
int nix() {
}
[erich@iTux ~]$ cc -c test1.c
[erich@iTux ~]$ cc -c test2.c
[erich@iTux ~]$ ls -l test1.o test2.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 erich erich 685 Nov  4 13:35 test1.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 erich erich 685 Nov  4 13:35 test2.o
[erich@iTux ~]$

m0ffx:

If that's the extent of the program, will the compiler allow it to compile to no instructions?

Also, I'm sure there'd be some hideous means to get the code in such a block to execute. Don't know what mind. 

At least SpiderMonkey, Mozilla's JS compiler/interpreter does it for JavaScript. Because it also includes a decompiler, it can easily be seen:

function f() {
    if (0) {
       alert("foo");
    }
}

alert(f.toString());

function f() {
}

m0ffx:

If that's the extent of the program, will the compiler allow it to compile to no instructions?

Also, I'm sure there'd be some hideous means to get the code in such a block to execute. Don't know what mind. 

if (0) {

   label: printf("oh noes!");

}

goto label;

Since even "unreachable code"s compile into the object file (on my compiler anyway), we need something the optimizer would throw away. How about:

int i;

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

(repeat as many times as you'd like)

aib:

Since even "unreachable code"s compile into the object file (on my compiler anyway), we need something the optimizer would throw away. How about:

int i;

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

(repeat as many times as you'd like)

One of the addendums to the rules specified no repetition.

PJH:

aib:

Since even "unreachable code"s compile into the object file (on my compiler anyway), we need something the optimizer would throw away. How about:

int i;

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

for(i=0; i<10; i++);

(repeat as many times as you'd like)

One of the addendums to the rules specified no repetition.

Besides, i++ is an instruction. And since i is being read in i<10, no optimizer could throw away that instruction either.

How about

inline int foo() {
    // lots of code
}

int main() {
    return 1 ? 0 : foo();
}

?