From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 11:44:32
On 02/05/07, Michael Gopshtein <mgopshtein_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> The 2nd task is more tricky, as if you don't catch the exception in same
> function where it occurs, but somewhere down the stack, the "normal" stack
> trace is lost. In our code we keep a "history" of call stacks, and can
> always print the whole stack.
That's a neat idea.
I'm guessing you keep an iterator into the container of calls, then on
a return just decrement that iterator so you can see the full trace
even after stack unwinding, then be able to throw away those calls
when you next call a function? (Or something like that.)
~ Scott McMurray
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk