大多数人说永远不要从析构函数抛出异常——这样做会导致未定义的行为。Stroustrup指出，“vector析构函数显式地为每个元素调用析构函数。这意味着如果元素析构函数抛出，则vector销毁失败…实际上没有很好的方法来防止析构函数抛出异常，因此标准库不保证元素析构函数是否抛出”(摘自附录E3.2)。
这篇文章似乎不是这么说的——抛出析构函数或多或少是可以的。
所以我的问题是，如果从析构函数抛出导致未定义的行为，你如何处理析构函数期间发生的错误?
如果在清理操作期间发生错误，您会忽略它吗?如果它是一个可以在堆栈中处理但不能在析构函数中处理的错误，那么从析构函数抛出异常难道没有意义吗?
显然，这种错误很少见，但也有可能发生。
当前回答
我所在的小组认为，在析构函数中加入“作用域保护”模式在许多情况下都很有用——特别是对于单元测试。但是，要注意，在c++ 11中，抛出析构函数会导致调用std::terminate，因为析构函数隐式地用noexcept注释。
Andrzej krzemiezynski有一篇关于抛出析构函数的文章:
https://akrzemi1.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/destructors-that-throw/
他指出c++ 11有一种机制可以覆盖析构函数的默认noexcept:
In C++11, a destructor is implicitly specified as noexcept. Even if you add no specification and define your destructor like this: class MyType { public: ~MyType() { throw Exception(); } // ... }; The compiler will still invisibly add specification noexcept to your destructor. And this means that the moment your destructor throws an exception, std::terminate will be called, even if there was no double-exception situation. If you are really determined to allow your destructors to throw, you will have to specify this explicitly; you have three options: Explicitly specify your destructor as noexcept(false), Inherit your class from another one that already specifies its destructor as noexcept(false). Put a non-static data member in your class that already specifies its destructor as noexcept(false).
最后，如果您决定抛出析构函数，则应该始终注意双异常的风险(在堆栈因异常而被unwind时抛出)。这将导致调用std::terminate，这很少是您想要的。为了避免这种行为，你可以使用std::uncaught_exception()在抛出一个新的异常之前检查是否已经有一个异常。
其他回答
你的析构函数可能在其他析构函数链中执行。抛出未被立即调用者捕获的异常可能会使多个对象处于不一致的状态，从而导致更多的问题，而不是在清理操作中忽略错误。
我的问题是，如果从析构函数抛出会导致 未定义的行为，如何处理过程中发生的错误 析构函数?
主要的问题是:你不能失败到失败。失败到底意味着什么?如果将事务提交到数据库失败，并且事务未能失败(回滚失败)，那么数据的完整性会发生什么变化?
由于析构函数在正常路径和异常(失败)路径上都被调用，它们本身不能失败，否则我们就是“失败”。
这是一个概念上很困难的问题，但通常解决方案是找到一种方法来确保失败不会失败。例如，数据库可能会在提交到外部数据结构或文件之前写入更改。如果事务失败，则可以丢弃文件/数据结构。它必须确保从外部结构/文件提交的更改是一个不会失败的原子事务。
务实的解决办法也许就是确保 一次又一次的失败在天文学上是不可能的，因为做东西 在某些情况下，失败几乎是不可能的。
对我来说，最合适的解决方案是以一种清理逻辑不会失败的方式编写非清理逻辑。例如，如果您想要创建一个新的数据结构来清理现有的数据结构，那么您可能会寻求提前创建那个辅助结构，这样我们就不必在析构函数中创建它了。
This is all much easier said than done, admittedly, but it's the only really proper way I see to go about it. Sometimes I think there should be an ability to write separate destructor logic for normal execution paths away from exceptional ones, since sometimes destructors feel a little bit like they have double the responsibilities by trying to handle both (an example is scope guards which require explicit dismissal; they wouldn't require this if they could differentiate exceptional destruction paths from non-exceptional ones).
Still the ultimate problem is that we can't fail to fail, and it's a hard conceptual design problem to solve perfectly in all cases. It does get easier if you don't get too wrapped up in complex control structures with tons of teeny objects interacting with each other, and instead model your designs in a slightly bulkier fashion (example: particle system with a destructor to destroy the entire particle system, not a separate non-trivial destructor per particle). When you model your designs at this kind of coarser level, you have less non-trivial destructors to deal with, and can also often afford whatever memory/processing overhead is required to make sure your destructors cannot fail.
And that's one of the easiest solutions naturally is to use destructors less often. In the particle example above, perhaps upon destroying/removing a particle, some things should be done that could fail for whatever reason. In that case, instead of invoking such logic through the particle's dtor which could be executed in an exceptional path, you could instead have it all done by the particle system when it removes a particle. Removing a particle might always be done during a non-exceptional path. If the system is destroyed, maybe it can just purge all particles and not bother with that individual particle removal logic which can fail, while the logic that can fail is only executed during the particle system's normal execution when it's removing one or more particles.
如果避免使用非平凡析构函数处理大量小对象，通常会出现这样的解决方案。当你被大量的小对象纠缠在一起时，你可能会陷入混乱，似乎不可能是异常安全的，这些小对象都有非平凡的dtor。
如果任何指定nothrow/noexcept的函数(包括应该继承其基类的noexcept规范的虚函数)试图调用任何可能抛出的函数，那么nothrow/noexcept实际上会被翻译成编译器错误，这将会有很大帮助。这样我们就能在编译时捕获所有这些东西，如果我们实际上无意中编写了一个析构函数，它可能会抛出。
我所在的小组认为，在析构函数中加入“作用域保护”模式在许多情况下都很有用——特别是对于单元测试。但是，要注意，在c++ 11中，抛出析构函数会导致调用std::terminate，因为析构函数隐式地用noexcept注释。
Andrzej krzemiezynski有一篇关于抛出析构函数的文章:
https://akrzemi1.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/destructors-that-throw/
他指出c++ 11有一种机制可以覆盖析构函数的默认noexcept:
In C++11, a destructor is implicitly specified as noexcept. Even if you add no specification and define your destructor like this: class MyType { public: ~MyType() { throw Exception(); } // ... }; The compiler will still invisibly add specification noexcept to your destructor. And this means that the moment your destructor throws an exception, std::terminate will be called, even if there was no double-exception situation. If you are really determined to allow your destructors to throw, you will have to specify this explicitly; you have three options: Explicitly specify your destructor as noexcept(false), Inherit your class from another one that already specifies its destructor as noexcept(false). Put a non-static data member in your class that already specifies its destructor as noexcept(false).
最后，如果您决定抛出析构函数，则应该始终注意双异常的风险(在堆栈因异常而被unwind时抛出)。这将导致调用std::terminate，这很少是您想要的。为了避免这种行为，你可以使用std::uncaught_exception()在抛出一个新的异常之前检查是否已经有一个异常。
从析构函数抛出异常永远不会导致未定义的行为。
The problem of throwing exceptions out a destructor is that destructors of successfully created objects which scopes are leaving while handling an uncaught exception (it is after an exception object is created and until completion of a handler of the exception activation), are called by exception handling mechanism; and, If such additional exception from the destructor called while processing the uncaught exception interrupts handling the uncaught exception, it will cause calling std::terminate (the other case when std::exception is called is that an exception is not handled by any handler but this is as for any other function, regardless of whether or not it was a destructor).
如果正在处理未捕获的异常，您的代码永远不知道附加的异常是否会被捕获，或者是否会归档未捕获的异常处理机制，因此永远不知道抛出异常是否安全。
但是，有可能知道正在处理未捕获的异常(https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/error/uncaught_exception)，因此可以通过检查条件来过度处理，只在情况不是这样的情况下抛出(在某些情况下它不会抛出，但它是安全的)。
但在实践中，将程序分成两种可能的行为并没有什么用——它只是无助于你设计出一个设计良好的程序。
If you throw out of destructors ignoring whether or not an uncaught exception handling is in progress, in order to avoid possible calling std::terminate, you must guarantee that all exceptions thrown during lifetime of an object that may throw an exception from their destructor are caught before beginning of destruction of the object. It is quite limited usage; you hardly can use all classes which would be reasonably allowed to throw out of their destructor in this way; and a combination of allowing such exceptions only for some classes with such restricted usage of these classes impede making a well-designed program, too.
这很危险，但从可读性/代码可理解性的角度来看，这也没有意义。
你要问的是在这种情况下
int foo()
{
Object o;
// As foo exits, o's destructor is called
}
什么应该捕获异常?foo的调用者应该这样做吗?或者应该由foo来处理它?为什么foo的调用者要关心foo内部的某个对象?可能有一种语言定义的方式是有意义的，但它将是不可读的和难以理解的。
更重要的是，对象的内存去哪里了?对象拥有的内存到哪里去了?它仍然被分配吗(表面上是因为析构函数失败了)?考虑到对象在堆栈空间中，所以它显然已经消失了。
然后考虑这个例子
class Object
{
Object2 obj2;
Object3* obj3;
virtual ~Object()
{
// What should happen when this fails? How would I actually destroy this?
delete obj3;
// obj 2 fails to destruct when it goes out of scope, now what!?!?
// should the exception propogate?
}
};
当obj3的删除失败时，我如何以一种保证不会失败的方式删除?该死的是我的记忆!
现在考虑在第一个代码片段中，Object自动消失，因为它在堆栈上，而Object3在堆上。因为指向Object3的指针没有了，你就有点SOL了，你有内存泄漏。
下面是一种安全的做法
class Socket
{
virtual ~Socket()
{
try
{
Close();
}
catch (...)
{
// Why did close fail? make sure it *really* does close here
}
}
};
也可以参考这个FAQ
