Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: improved assertions?

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-14 21:22:31

From: "Ted Byers" <r.ted.byers_at_[hidden]>
> "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:0a7a01c213f6$ff88e780$6601a8c0_at_boostconsulting.com...
> > Example 1: assertions. By the time the stack is unwound much
information
> is
> > lost. On Unix, for example, you want a core dump, not an exception. On
> > Windows you also don't want stack unwinding, though the case is a
little
> > more complicated there.
> >
> What I would be inclined to do with assertions is collect as much
> information as I can at the point where the assertion failed:
presumably, a
> clever programmer could capture this information that would be lost by
the
> time the stack is unwound.  I'd have to rely on someone like you to tell
me
> how to capture that information, and then I'd package it in one of my
> traceable exceptions which can then give me my trace information.

On systems where there's a built-in facility for that (Windows, Unix),
anything you can do yourself is going to be vastly inferior to what the
system can give you by default. On Windows you get JIT debugging, which
invokes a debugger on the program with (if you know the right tricks) the
entire program state preserved. On Unix, a core dump is a debuggable image
of the program state.

I would never trade what's supplied by the platform for a cumbersome
intrusive facility that requires manual intervention.

-Dave