From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-26 14:51:44
"Slawomir Lisznianski" <slisznianski_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:17:41 -0400, "David Abrahams"
> <dave_at_[hidden]> said:
>> Another possibility (a good one IMO) would be to allow a
>> user-replaceable handler there, which could abort, log a message and
>> then abort, eat the exception, etc., as desired. If the default is to
>> eat the exception, you have perfect backward compatibility.
> I don't think any user-replaceable handler strategy, other than through
> set_terminate() or set_unexpected(), is going to work well. That's
> because you will never have an option of seeing a function name in the
> call stack trace of the core file where exception originated. Am I
> missing something?
A user-replaceable handler can't dump core?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk