Finally Block Not Running?

Question

Ok this is kind of a weird issue and I am hoping someone can shed some light. I have the following code:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    try
    {
             


        

Answer 1

Ran this in both release and debug, in both framework 3.5 and 4.0, I see "in Finally" in all instances, yes running it from command line, went as far as closing my vs sessions, maybe it's something on your machine or as Kobi pointed out, maybe platform related (I'm on Win7 x64)

Answer 2

I am able to reproduce the behavior now (I didn't get the exact steps from your question when I was reading it the first time).

One difference I can observe is in the way that the .NET runtime handles the unhandled exception. The CLR 2.0 runs a helper called Microsoft .NET Error Reporting Shim (dw20.exe) whereas the CLR 4.0 starts Windows Error Reporting (WerFault.exe).

I assume that the two have different behavior with respect to terminating the crashing process. WerFault.exe obviously kills the .NET process immediately whereas the .NET Error Reporting Shim somehow closes the application so that the finally block still is executed.

Also have a look at the Event Viewer: WerFault logs an application error notifying that the crashed process was terminated:

Application: ConsoleApplication1.exe
Framework Version: v4.0.30319
Description: The process was terminated due to an unhandled exception.
Exception Info: System.Threading.AbandonedMutexException
Stack:
   at Program.Main(System.String[])

dw20.exe however only logs an information item with event id 1001 to the Event Log and does not terminate the process.

Answer 3

Think about how awful that situation is: something unexpected has happened that no one ever wrote code to handle. Is the right thing to do in that situation to run even more code, that was probably also not built to handle this situation? Possibly not. Often the right thing to do here is to not attempt to run the finally blocks because doing so will make a bad situation even worse. You already know the process is going down; put it out of its misery immediately.

In a scenario where an unhandled exception is going to take down the process, anything can happen. It is implementation-defined what happens in this case: whether the error is reported to Windows error reporting, whether a debugger starts up, and so on. The CLR is perfectly within its rights to attempt to run finally blocks, and is also perfectly within its rights to fail fast. In this scenario all bets are off; different implementations can choose to do different things.

Answer 4

All my knowledge on this subject is taken from this article here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc793966.aspx - please note it is written for .NET 2.0 but I have a feeling it makes sense for what we were experiencing in this case (more than "because it decided to" anyways)

Quick "I dont have time to read that article" answer (although you should, it's a really good one):

The solution to the problem (if you absolutly HAVE to have your finally blocks run) would be to a) put in a global error handler or b) force .NET to always run finally blocks and do things the way it did (arguably the wrong way) in .NET 1.1 - Place the following in your app.config:

<legacyUnhandledExceptionPolicy enabled="1">

The reason for it: When an exception is thrown in .NET it starts walking back through the stack looking for exception handlers and when it finds one it then does a second walk back through the stack running finally blocks before running the content of the catch. If it does not find a catch then this second walk never happens thus the finally blocks are never run here which is why a global exception handler will always run finally clauses as the CLR will run them when it finds the catch, NOT when it runs it (which I belive means even if you do a catch/throw your finally blocks will still get run).

The reason the app.config fix works is because for .NET 1.0 and 1.1 the CLR had a global catch in it which would swallow Exceptions before they went unmanaged which would, being a catch of course, trigger the finally blocks to run. Of course there is no way the framework can know enough about said Exception to handle it, take for example a stack overflow, so this is probably the wrong way of doing it.

The next bit is where it gets a bit sticky, and I am making assumptions based off of what the article says here.

If you are in .NET 2.0+ without the legacy exception handling on then your Exception would fall out into the Windows exception handling system (SEH) which seems pretty darn similar to the CLR one, in that it walks back through frames until it fails to find a catch and then calls a series of events called the Unhandled Exception Filter (UEF). This is an event you can subscribe to, but it can only have ONE thing subscribed to it at a time, so when something does subscribe Windows hands it the address of the callback that was there before, allowing you to set up a chain of UEF handlers - BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HONOR that address, they should call the address themselves, but if one breaks the chain, bap, you get no more error handling. I assume that this is what is happening when you cancel windows error reporting, it breaks the UEF chain which means that the application is shut down immediately and the finally blocks are not run, however if you let it run to the end and close it, it will call the next UEF in the chain. .NET will have registerd one which is what the AppDomain.UnhandledException is called from (thus even this event is not guaranteed) which I assume is also where you get your finally blocks called from - as I can't see how if you never transition back into the CLR a managed finally block can run (the article does not go into this bit.)

Answer 5

I believe this has something to do with changes to how the debugger is attached.

From the .NET Framework 4 Migration Issues document:

You are no longer notified when the debugger fails to start, or when there is no registered debugger that should be started.

What happens is that you choose to start the debugger, but you cancel it. I believe this falls under this category and the application just stops because of this.