When abort() is preferred over exit()?

Question

I know the differences between the two. One notable thing is that abort() sends SIGABRT signal, so it may be relevant when your software relies on them. But for a typical application exit() seems to be more safe version of abort()...? Are there any other concerns to use abort() instead of exit()?

Answer 1

Using abort will dump core, if the user has core dumps enabled. So as a rule of thumb, I'd use abort if you're so unsure about what's gone wrong that the only way to get useful information about it is by analysing a core dump.

If you can safely exit from any given point, and don't need the core dump, then exit is a nicer approach.

Answer 2

Use abort() if your program is in a possibly corrupt state and you consider it too dangerous to try to do anything further. exit() will cause any atexit functions, and in C++ destructors of static objects, to be called. This is usually what you want for a clean exit, but it could be catastrophic if, for example, they overwrite a file with corrupt data.

Answer 3

Sometimes your program breaks to such extent that its state becomes inconsistent and so exit() will not work because it would cause global objects destruction and the latter would not function properly when the state is inconsistent. In such situations abort() is to be preferred.

Answer 4

Abort is preffered when application doesnot able to handle the exception and not able to understand what to do scenario. Exit() mean application should must finish all task gracefully. if exception occurs and application is able to handle the same then Exit() call happens.