Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-27 02:11:57

On 3/17/2017 11:09 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost-users wrote:
> I am pleased to announce the second review of the proposed
> Boost.Stacktrace library running from today until Sunday 26th.
>
> Stacktrace is an optionally header-only library providing multiple
> implementation backends. At its very simplest it lets you capture the
> stack backtrace for the calling thread and to print it to a
> std::ostream& of your choice. The basic_stacktrace<> class quacks
> like a STL container of frame object instances. The rest of the API
> pretty much follows STL design principles for the most part. Use is
> therefore unsurprising.
>
> You can find the documentation at
> http://apolukhin.github.io/stacktrace/index.html and the github repo
> at https://github.com/apolukhin/stacktrace.

This is my review of the stacktrace library.

>
> For your review you may wish to consider the following questions:
>       - What is your evaluation of the design?

The design is straightforward and easy to use.

>       - What is your evaluation of the implementation?

As others have said the windows.h issue should be addressed. Otherwise 
the implementation looks good.

>       - What is your evaluation of the documentation?

The doc could be expanded with some basic information about the 
stacktrace and frame classes and how they relate. I know the modern 
documentation method is some sort of tutorial with examples, and then a 
reference, but I always welcome some basic explanations, even in a 
library whose interfaces are as simple as stacktrace. So I would like to 
see the doc expanded with some more explanation about stacktraces and 
their frames.

>       - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
>         library?

I think it will be useful to programmers as an alternative to visual 
debuggers. Its usefulness is based on its ability to show function 
information in its stacktracing.

>       - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you
>         have any problems?

Tried with VS2014. No problems with the output. I did not try with clang 
or gcc on Linux or Windows.

>       - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
>         quick reading? In-depth study?

A quick reading and trying it out to see if it actually works as advertised.

>       - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

I have used stacktraces in many programming environments to debug 
programming problems.

 > And finally, every review should attempt to answer this question:

 >      - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost
 > library?

I vote to accept the library. I think the library author still has some 
work to do, but I believe that the library is useful enough, and uses 
the right approach with the different backends, to be accepted.