We Keep Coding

Is a generic exception supported inside a catch?

The above block refering to another question+answer on SO does NOT contain a correct answer which applies here!
I have a method used for unit testing. The purpose of this method is to ensure that a piece of code (refered to by a delegate) will throw a specific exception. If that exception is thrown, the unit test succeeds. If no exception is thrown or another type exception is thrown, the unit test will fail.
/// <summary>
/// Checks to make sure that the action throws a exception of type TException.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="TException">The type of exception expected.</typeparam>
/// <param name="action">The code to execute which is expected to generate the exception.</param>
public static void Throws<TException>(Action action)
where TException : Exception
{
try
{
action();
}
catch (TException)
{
return;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Assert.Fail("Wrong exception was thrown. Exception of type " + ex.GetType() + " was thrown, exception of type " + typeof(TException) + " was expected.");
}
Assert.Fail("No exception was thrown. Exception of type " + typeof(TException) + " was expected.");
}
The next call should succeed, but it fails:
int result = 0;
Throws<DivideByZeroException>(() => result = result / result);
When the expected exception of type TException is thrown, it is always caught by the second catch, not by the first catch. Why is this?
Of course I can use a workarround with one catch and test if ex is of type TException. By I simply want to know/understand why this code compiles but simple (never?) works.
EDIT
At request a "working" demo:
using System;
namespace GenericExceptionDemo
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int n = 0;
Catch<DivideByZeroException>(() => n = n / n);
}
static public void Catch<TException>(Action action)
where TException: Exception
{
try
{
action();
Console.WriteLine("No exception thrown. !!!Fail!!!");
}
catch (TException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Expected exception thrown. PASS!");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("An unexpected exception of type " + ex.GetType() + " thrown. !!!FAIL!!!");
}
}
}
}

You're not the first person to encounter this problem. This question is very similar. If you dig through the answers and links, it comes down to a bug in the CLR.
EDIT:
As a follow up, I've run Martin's example from VS2010 and got the following results:
Targetting .NET 4, PASS
Targetting .NET 3.5, FAIL
Targetting .NET 3.5 in RELEASE mode, PASS
Sadly, all the SO links to the Microsoft Bug Report are dead now and I haven't been able to find any others.

(This is not a concrete answer; but I could not post it as a comment too.)
I can not reproduce this (VS 2012, .NET 4.5, C# 5.0, every SP installed).
I defined this exception class:
class MyException : Exception
{
public MyException() { }
public MyException(string message) : base(message) { }
}
and a method:
static void Throws<T>(Action action) where T : Exception
{
try
{
action();
}
catch (T) { Console.WriteLine("got {0}", typeof(T)); }
catch (Exception) { Console.WriteLine("got Exception"); }
}
and I have tested it this way:
Throws<MyException>(() => { throw new MyException(); });
int result = 0;
Throws<DivideByZeroException>(() => result = result / result);
and the output is:
got Draft.MyException
got System.DivideByZeroException
So (IMHO) you should look somewhere else.

C# try catch rethrow stack trace [duplicate]

I rethrow an exception with "throw;", but the stacktrace is incorrect:
static void Main(string[] args) {
try {
try {
throw new Exception("Test"); //Line 12
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw; //Line 15
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write(ex.ToString());
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
The right stacktrace should be:
System.Exception: Test
at ConsoleApplication1.Program.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:Line 12
But I get:
System.Exception: Test
at ConsoleApplication1.Program.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:Line 15
But line 15 is the position of the "throw;". I have tested this with .NET 3.5.

Throwing twice in the same method is probably a special case - I've not been able to create a stack trace where different lines in the same method follow each other. As the word says, a "stack trace" shows you the stack frames that an exception traversed. And there is only one stack frame per method call!
If you throw from another method, throw; will not remove the entry for Foo(), as expected:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Rethrower();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.Write(ex.ToString());
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void Rethrower()
{
try
{
Foo();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
}
static void Foo()
{
throw new Exception("Test");
}
If you modify Rethrower() and replace throw; by throw ex;, the Foo() entry in the stack trace disappears. Again, that's the expected behavior.

It's something that can be considered as expected.
Modifying stack trace is usual case if you specify throw ex;, FxCop will than notify you that stack is modified. In case you make throw;, no warning is generated, but still, the trace will be modified.
So unfortunately for now it's the best not to catch the ex or throw it as an inner one.
I think it should be considered as a Windows impact or smth like that - edited.
Jeff Richter describes this situation in more detail in his "CLR via C#":
The following code throws the same
exception object that it caught and
causes the CLR to reset its starting
point for the exception:
private void SomeMethod() {
try { ... }
catch (Exception e) {
...
throw e; // CLR thinks this is where exception originated.
// FxCop reports this as an error
}
}
In contrast, if you re-throw an
exception object by using the throw
keyword by itself, the CLR doesn’t
reset the stack’s starting point. The
following code re-throws the same
exception object that it caught,
causing the CLR to not reset its
starting point for the exception:
private void SomeMethod() {
try { ... }
catch (Exception e) {
...
throw; // This has no effect on where the CLR thinks the exception
// originated. FxCop does NOT report this as an error
}
}
In fact, the only difference between
these two code fragments is what the
CLR thinks is the original location
where the exception was thrown.
Unfortunately, when you throw or
rethrow an exception, Windows does
reset the stack’s starting point. So
if the exception becomes unhandled,
the stack location that gets reported
to Windows Error Reporting is the
location of the last throw or
re-throw, even though the CLR knows
the stack location where the original
exception was thrown. This is
unfortunate because it makes debugging
applications that have failed in the
field much more difficult. Some
developers have found this so
intolerable that they have chosen a
different way to implement their code
to ensure that the stack trace truly
reflects the location where an
exception was originally thrown:
private void SomeMethod() {
Boolean trySucceeds = false;
try {
...
trySucceeds = true;
}
finally {
if (!trySucceeds) { /* catch code goes in here */ }
}
}

This is a well known limitation in the Windows version of the CLR. It uses Windows' built-in support for exception handling (SEH). Problem is, it is stack frame based and a method has only one stack frame. You can easily solve the problem by moving the inner try/catch block into another helper method, thus creating another stack frame. Another consequence of this limitation is that the JIT compiler won't inline any method that contains a try statement.

How can I preserve the REAL stacktrace?
You throw a new exception, and include the original exception as the inner exception.
but that's Ugly... Longer... Makes you choice the rigth exception to throw....
You are wrong about the ugly but right about the other two points. The rule of thumb is: don't catch unless you are going to do something with it, like wrap it, modify it, swallow it, or log it. If you decide to catch and then throw again, make sure you are doing something with it, otherwise just let it bubble up.
You may also be tempted to put a catch simply so you can breakpoint within the catch, but the Visual Studio debugger has enough options to make that practice unnecessary, try using first chance exceptions or conditional breakpoints instead.

Edit/Replace
The behavior is actually different, but subtilely so. As for why the behavior if different, I'll need to defer to a CLR expert.
EDIT: AlexD's answer seems to indicate that this is by design.
Throwing the exception in the same method that catches it confuses the situation a little, so let's throw an exception from another method:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Throw();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
public static void Throw()
{
int a = 0;
int b = 10 / a;
}
}
If throw; is used, the callstack is (line numbers replaced with code):
at Throw():line (int b = 10 / a;)
at Main():line (throw;) // This has been modified
If throw ex; is used, the callstack is:
at Main():line (throw ex;)
If exception is not caught, the callstack is:
at Throw():line (int b = 10 / a;)
at Main():line (Throw())
Tested in .NET 4 / VS 2010

There is a duplicate question here.
As I understand it - throw; is compiled into 'rethrow' MSIL instruction and it modifies the last frame of the stack-trace.
I would expect it to keep the original stack-trace and add the line where it has been re-thrown, but apparently there can only be one stack frame per method call.
Conclusion: avoid using throw; and wrap your exception in a new one on re-throwing - it's not ugly, it's best practice.

You can preserve stack trace using
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
Here is code sample:
static void CallAndThrow()
{
throw new ApplicationException("Test app ex", new Exception("Test inner ex"));
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
try
{
try
{
CallAndThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var dispatchException = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
// rollback tran, etc
dispatchException.Throw();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var dispatchException = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
// other rollbacks
dispatchException.Throw();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.InnerException.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
The output will be something like:
Test app ex
Test inner ex
at TestApp.Program.CallAndThrow() in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 19
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 30
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 38
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 47

OK, there seems to be a bug in the .NET Framework, if you throw an exception, and rethrow it in the same method, the original line number is lost (it will be the last line of the method).
Fortunatelly, a clever guy named Fabrice MARGUERIE found a solution to this bug. Below is my version, which you can test in this .NET Fiddle.
private static void RethrowExceptionButPreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
System.Reflection.MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
throw exception;
}
Now catch the exception as usually, but instead of throw; just call this method, and voila, the original line number will be preserved!

Not sure whether this is by design, but I think it has always been like that.
If the original throw new Exception is in a separate method, then the result for throw should have the original method name and line number and then the line number in main where the exception is re-thrown.
If you use throw ex, then the result will just be the line in main where the exception is rethrow.
In other words, throw ex loses all the stacktrace, whereas throw preserves the stack trace history (ie details of the lower level methods). But if your exception is generated by the same method as your rethrow, then you can lose some information.
NB. If you write a very simple and small test program, the Framework can sometimes optimise things and change a method to be inline code which means the results may differ from a 'real' program.

Do you want your right line number? Just use one try/catch per method. In systems, well... just in the UI layer, not in logic or data access, this is very annoying, because if you need database transactions, well, they shouldn't be in the UI layer, and you won't have the right line number, but if you don't need them, don't rethrow with nor without an exception in catch...
5 minutes sample code:
Menu File -> New Project, place three buttons, and call the following code in each one:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithoutTC();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithTC1();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithTC2();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
Now, create a new Class:
class Class1
{
public int a;
public static void testWithoutTC()
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
public static void testWithTC1()
{
try
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
public static void testWithTC2()
{
try
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
Run... the first button is beautiful!

I think this is less a case of stack trace changing and more to do with the way the line number for the stack trace is determined. Trying it out in Visual Studio 2010, the behaviour is similar to what you would expect from the MSDN documentation: "throw ex;" rebuilds the stack trace from the point of this statement, "throw;" leaves the stack trace as it as, except that where ever the exception is rethrown, the line number is the location of the rethrow and not the call the exception came through.
So with "throw;" the method call tree is left unaltered, but the line numbers may change.
I've come across this a few times, and it may be by design and just not documented fully. I can understand why they may have done this as the rethrow location is very useful to know, and if your methods are simple enough the original source would usually be obvious anyway.
As many other people have said, it usually best to not catch the exception unless you really have to, and/or you are going to deal with it at that point.
Interesting side note: Visual Studio 2010 won't even let me build the code as presented in the question as it picks up the divide by zero error at compile time.

That is because you catched the Exception from Line 12 and have rethrown it on Line 15, so the Stack Trace takes it as cash, that the Exception was thrown from there.
To better handle exceptions, you should simply use try...finally, and let the unhandled Exception bubble up.

Incorrect stacktrace by rethrow

I rethrow an exception with "throw;", but the stacktrace is incorrect:
static void Main(string[] args) {
try {
try {
throw new Exception("Test"); //Line 12
}
catch (Exception ex) {
throw; //Line 15
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Write(ex.ToString());
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
The right stacktrace should be:
System.Exception: Test
at ConsoleApplication1.Program.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:Line 12
But I get:
System.Exception: Test
at ConsoleApplication1.Program.Main(String[] args) in Program.cs:Line 15
But line 15 is the position of the "throw;". I have tested this with .NET 3.5.

Throwing twice in the same method is probably a special case - I've not been able to create a stack trace where different lines in the same method follow each other. As the word says, a "stack trace" shows you the stack frames that an exception traversed. And there is only one stack frame per method call!
If you throw from another method, throw; will not remove the entry for Foo(), as expected:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Rethrower();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.Write(ex.ToString());
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void Rethrower()
{
try
{
Foo();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw;
}
}
static void Foo()
{
throw new Exception("Test");
}
If you modify Rethrower() and replace throw; by throw ex;, the Foo() entry in the stack trace disappears. Again, that's the expected behavior.

It's something that can be considered as expected.
Modifying stack trace is usual case if you specify throw ex;, FxCop will than notify you that stack is modified. In case you make throw;, no warning is generated, but still, the trace will be modified.
So unfortunately for now it's the best not to catch the ex or throw it as an inner one.
I think it should be considered as a Windows impact or smth like that - edited.
Jeff Richter describes this situation in more detail in his "CLR via C#":
The following code throws the same
exception object that it caught and
causes the CLR to reset its starting
point for the exception:
private void SomeMethod() {
try { ... }
catch (Exception e) {
...
throw e; // CLR thinks this is where exception originated.
// FxCop reports this as an error
}
}
In contrast, if you re-throw an
exception object by using the throw
keyword by itself, the CLR doesn’t
reset the stack’s starting point. The
following code re-throws the same
exception object that it caught,
causing the CLR to not reset its
starting point for the exception:
private void SomeMethod() {
try { ... }
catch (Exception e) {
...
throw; // This has no effect on where the CLR thinks the exception
// originated. FxCop does NOT report this as an error
}
}
In fact, the only difference between
these two code fragments is what the
CLR thinks is the original location
where the exception was thrown.
Unfortunately, when you throw or
rethrow an exception, Windows does
reset the stack’s starting point. So
if the exception becomes unhandled,
the stack location that gets reported
to Windows Error Reporting is the
location of the last throw or
re-throw, even though the CLR knows
the stack location where the original
exception was thrown. This is
unfortunate because it makes debugging
applications that have failed in the
field much more difficult. Some
developers have found this so
intolerable that they have chosen a
different way to implement their code
to ensure that the stack trace truly
reflects the location where an
exception was originally thrown:
private void SomeMethod() {
Boolean trySucceeds = false;
try {
...
trySucceeds = true;
}
finally {
if (!trySucceeds) { /* catch code goes in here */ }
}
}

This is a well known limitation in the Windows version of the CLR. It uses Windows' built-in support for exception handling (SEH). Problem is, it is stack frame based and a method has only one stack frame. You can easily solve the problem by moving the inner try/catch block into another helper method, thus creating another stack frame. Another consequence of this limitation is that the JIT compiler won't inline any method that contains a try statement.

How can I preserve the REAL stacktrace?
You throw a new exception, and include the original exception as the inner exception.
but that's Ugly... Longer... Makes you choice the rigth exception to throw....
You are wrong about the ugly but right about the other two points. The rule of thumb is: don't catch unless you are going to do something with it, like wrap it, modify it, swallow it, or log it. If you decide to catch and then throw again, make sure you are doing something with it, otherwise just let it bubble up.
You may also be tempted to put a catch simply so you can breakpoint within the catch, but the Visual Studio debugger has enough options to make that practice unnecessary, try using first chance exceptions or conditional breakpoints instead.

Edit/Replace
The behavior is actually different, but subtilely so. As for why the behavior if different, I'll need to defer to a CLR expert.
EDIT: AlexD's answer seems to indicate that this is by design.
Throwing the exception in the same method that catches it confuses the situation a little, so let's throw an exception from another method:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
Throw();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
public static void Throw()
{
int a = 0;
int b = 10 / a;
}
}
If throw; is used, the callstack is (line numbers replaced with code):
at Throw():line (int b = 10 / a;)
at Main():line (throw;) // This has been modified
If throw ex; is used, the callstack is:
at Main():line (throw ex;)
If exception is not caught, the callstack is:
at Throw():line (int b = 10 / a;)
at Main():line (Throw())
Tested in .NET 4 / VS 2010

There is a duplicate question here.
As I understand it - throw; is compiled into 'rethrow' MSIL instruction and it modifies the last frame of the stack-trace.
I would expect it to keep the original stack-trace and add the line where it has been re-thrown, but apparently there can only be one stack frame per method call.
Conclusion: avoid using throw; and wrap your exception in a new one on re-throwing - it's not ugly, it's best practice.

You can preserve stack trace using
ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
Here is code sample:
static void CallAndThrow()
{
throw new ApplicationException("Test app ex", new Exception("Test inner ex"));
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
try
{
try
{
CallAndThrow();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var dispatchException = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
// rollback tran, etc
dispatchException.Throw();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
var dispatchException = ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(ex);
// other rollbacks
dispatchException.Throw();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.InnerException.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
The output will be something like:
Test app ex
Test inner ex
at TestApp.Program.CallAndThrow() in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 19
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 30
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 38
--- End of stack trace from previous location where exception was thrown ---
at System.Runtime.ExceptionServices.ExceptionDispatchInfo.Throw()
at TestApp.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\TestApp\TestApp\Program.cs:line 47

OK, there seems to be a bug in the .NET Framework, if you throw an exception, and rethrow it in the same method, the original line number is lost (it will be the last line of the method).
Fortunatelly, a clever guy named Fabrice MARGUERIE found a solution to this bug. Below is my version, which you can test in this .NET Fiddle.
private static void RethrowExceptionButPreserveStackTrace(Exception exception)
{
System.Reflection.MethodInfo preserveStackTrace = typeof(Exception).GetMethod("InternalPreserveStackTrace",
System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic);
preserveStackTrace.Invoke(exception, null);
throw exception;
}
Now catch the exception as usually, but instead of throw; just call this method, and voila, the original line number will be preserved!

Not sure whether this is by design, but I think it has always been like that.
If the original throw new Exception is in a separate method, then the result for throw should have the original method name and line number and then the line number in main where the exception is re-thrown.
If you use throw ex, then the result will just be the line in main where the exception is rethrow.
In other words, throw ex loses all the stacktrace, whereas throw preserves the stack trace history (ie details of the lower level methods). But if your exception is generated by the same method as your rethrow, then you can lose some information.
NB. If you write a very simple and small test program, the Framework can sometimes optimise things and change a method to be inline code which means the results may differ from a 'real' program.

Do you want your right line number? Just use one try/catch per method. In systems, well... just in the UI layer, not in logic or data access, this is very annoying, because if you need database transactions, well, they shouldn't be in the UI layer, and you won't have the right line number, but if you don't need them, don't rethrow with nor without an exception in catch...
5 minutes sample code:
Menu File -> New Project, place three buttons, and call the following code in each one:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithoutTC();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithTC1();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
Class1.testWithTC2();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + Environment.NewLine + ex.StackTrace + Environment.NewLine + Environment.NewLine + "In. Ex.: " + ex.InnerException);
}
}
Now, create a new Class:
class Class1
{
public int a;
public static void testWithoutTC()
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
public static void testWithTC1()
{
try
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
catch
{
throw;
}
}
public static void testWithTC2()
{
try
{
Class1 obj = null;
obj.a = 1;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
Run... the first button is beautiful!

I think this is less a case of stack trace changing and more to do with the way the line number for the stack trace is determined. Trying it out in Visual Studio 2010, the behaviour is similar to what you would expect from the MSDN documentation: "throw ex;" rebuilds the stack trace from the point of this statement, "throw;" leaves the stack trace as it as, except that where ever the exception is rethrown, the line number is the location of the rethrow and not the call the exception came through.
So with "throw;" the method call tree is left unaltered, but the line numbers may change.
I've come across this a few times, and it may be by design and just not documented fully. I can understand why they may have done this as the rethrow location is very useful to know, and if your methods are simple enough the original source would usually be obvious anyway.
As many other people have said, it usually best to not catch the exception unless you really have to, and/or you are going to deal with it at that point.
Interesting side note: Visual Studio 2010 won't even let me build the code as presented in the question as it picks up the divide by zero error at compile time.

That is because you catched the Exception from Line 12 and have rethrown it on Line 15, so the Stack Trace takes it as cash, that the Exception was thrown from there.
To better handle exceptions, you should simply use try...finally, and let the unhandled Exception bubble up.

Resuming execution of code after exception is thrown and caught

How is it possible to resume code execution after an exception is thrown?
For example, take the following code:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Test
{
public void s()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
string #class = "" ;
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
}
After catching the exception when stepping through, the program will stop running. How can I still carry on execution?
EDIT: What I specifically mean is the line Console.WriteLine(#class); does not seem to be hit, because when I run to it when in debug mode, the program exits from debug mode. I want to run to this line and stop at it.
Thanks

Well, you don't have any code after the catch blocks, so the program would stop running. Not sure what you're trying to do.
The following should be proof that the program doesn't simply "stop" after the catch blocks. It will execute code after the catch blocks if there is code to be executed:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
Console.WriteLine("ArgumentException caught!");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Exception caught!");
}
Console.WriteLine("I am some code that's running after the exception!");
}
The code will print the appropriate string depending on the exception that was caught. Then, it will print I am some code that's running after the exception! at the end.
UPDATE
In your edit you asked why Console.WriteLine(#class); does not seem to be hit. The reason is that you are explicitly throwing an exception in the very first line of your s() method; anything that follows is ignored. When an exception is encountered, execution stops and the exception is propagated up the call stack until the appropriate handler can handle it (this may be a catch block that corresponds to the try that wraps the statement in question within the same method, or it may be a catch block further up the call-stack. If no appropriate handler is found, the program will terminate with a stacktrace [at least in Java - not sure if the same happens in C#]).
If you want to hit the Console.WriteLine line, then you shouldn't be explicitly throwing an exception at the beginning of the method.

It sounds like you're wanting resumeable exceptions. C# doesn't do resumeable exceptions, and I'm doubtful that CLR supports them.
The purpose of throwing an exception is to abort a function and an entire operation (call stack) if/when something in the call environment (parameters, object state, global state) makes the function's operation impossible or invalid. Passing a zero param to a function that needs to divide a quantity by that param, for example. Division by zero won't produce a meaningful result, and if that's the sole purpose of the function, then the function can't return a meaningful result either. So, throw an exception. This will cause execution to jump to the nearest catch or finally block on the call stack. There is no returning to the function that threw the exception.
If you want to step into your code in the debugger to trace the Console.WriteLine() calls, you need to remove the throw new NotSupportedException() line from your code and recompile.

If you're worried that an exception will be thrown in the method but you want the method to continue, add an error handler inside the method.
class Test
{
public void s()
{
try
{
// Code that may throw an exception
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Handle the exception - log?, reset some values?
}
string #class = "" ;
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
You could also return a bool or some other value to indicate the state.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that you actually do this.
You can mimic the old VB style On Error Resume Next with the following code.
public static class ControlFlow
{
public static Exception ResumeOnError(Action action)
{
try
{
action();
return null;
}
catch (Exception caught)
{
return caught;
}
}
}
And then it could be used like the following.
public static void Main()
{
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { throw new NotSupportedException(); });
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { Console.WriteLine(); });
ControlFlow.ResumeOnError(() => { Console.ReadLine(); });
}

Some simple code I put together to catch exceptions that are thrown inside a catch block:
try
{
//do code here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
try { SomeMethod1(); }
catch { }
try { SomeMethod2(); }
catch { }
try { SomeMethod3(); }
catch { }
}
finally
{
//cleanup goes here
}

Execution is still carying on but there is no code after the exception is caught. If you want to repeatedly call s then consider wrapping the try/catch block in a while loop.

The program stops running because there is no following code to be executed in the Main() method! You can add the following line to your code to keep the program running until there is a console input:
Console.ReadLine();

For that code, you can't. If you break the tasks up to smaller chunks, you can resume at the next chunk. But normally it's easier to have a different mechanism than exceptions to report non-fatal errors, such as a callback function which returns whether or not to continue.

You can use the "step-over" feature in debugging to achieve this on a per-run basis.

Instead of thowing the NotSupportedException, you could track that an exception was encountered, use a default value, and throw the exception at the end of the method call:
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class Test
{
public void s()
{
bool exceptionEncountered = false;
if(someConditionNotSupported){//stub condition
exceptionEncountered=true
#class="DefaultValue";
}
Console.WriteLine(#class);
Console.ReadLine();
if(exceptionEncountered){
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
}
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
new Test().s();
}
catch (ArgumentException x)
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
}

public static void Main()
{
for (int j = 0; j <= 100000; j++)
{
try
{
// TODO: Application logic...
}
catch
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}

Can't catch exception thrown by Invoke on a compiled expression

In the class:
private Func<T, object> pony;
In my function:
object newValue;
try {
newValue = pony.Invoke(model as T); // This is the line where I get an exception!
} catch (Exception exception) {
// This code is never run, even though I get an exception two lines up!
if(exception is DivideByZeroException) throw new DivideByZeroException("Division by zero when calculating member " + GetMemberName(), exception);
throw;
}
I expect to get exceptions when I throw them, but I get a DivideByZeroException on the line newValue = pony.Invoke(model as T);. Why is this? Can I do something about it?
This is in a asp.net mvc2-application running in Cassini at the moment.
If I select Start debugging in Visual Studio 2008, the error gets caught and rethrown with the extra information!
The problem was that I obviously haven't understood how inner exceptions work. The exception gets caught but then only the inner exception is shown, and that's a totally other issue.

Exceptions thrown from a compiled expression are handled normally by the try .. catch construct, so I'd expect that there is some other issue in your code. If you try for example the following code, it behaves as expected:
Expression<Func<int, int>> f = x => 10 / x;
Func<int, int> fcompiled = f.Compile();
try {
Console.WriteLine(fcompiled(0));
} catch (DivideByZeroException e) {
Console.WriteLine("Divison by zero");
}
As a side note, you should probably handle DivideByZeroException using a separate catch (as I did in my example). This is a cleaner and recommended way to catch different types of exceptions.
Can you check whether the exception is really unhandled when running the application without debugging (for example by adding some debug print to the catch block)? What exception is printed when you run the application (afterall, your code rethrows some exception in any case, so the output may not be clear).

The following code worked for me (this is in a C# console app, although I don't know why that would work differently from ASP.NET):
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var foo = new Foo<int>();
try
{
Console.WriteLine("Calling function");
foo.DoStuff(5);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Caught exception: " + ex.ToString());
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("In finally block");
}
}
}
class Foo<T>
{
private Func<T, object> pony;
public Foo()
{
this.pony = m =>
{
throw new DivideByZeroException("Exception!");
};
}
public object DoStuff(T o)
{
return this.pony.Invoke(o);
}
}
This prints out the contents of the exception to the command line, as expected.

Well, the code executed in the compiled expression obviously generates the DivideByZeroException, right. Something tries to divide by zero in that. So what else would you expect?
Note that the debugger (especially VS) may break on exceptions, so that you should make sure to continue running the application, it should reach your catch block just fine.