Re: [boost] [optional] Making optional more debugger friendly

From: Jeffrey Faust (jefffaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 23:24:38

Michael Fawcett wrote:

> On 5/22/07, Jeffrey Faust <jefffaust_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I'm interested in non-intrusive means, of which neither of your
> proposals really satisfy.  Modifying your own code to store the value
> and watching that variable in the debugger is just a workaround for
> the debugger's deficiency.  I think all of the previous points raised
> by Giovanni about modifying the Boost code and imposing yet another
> macro are valid, and it is a better but still undesirable solution.

I suppose you could argue that a debugger should be able to look at any  
address as any type you pick.  The aligned memory construct is certainly a  
difficult case.

True, it is an intrusive patch, but that's not what I meant.  An intrusive  
change into library code is not noticed by the user.  My goal was to  
provide a benefit to what I see is a weakness in the library, at very  
little cost.

> There have been a few threads specific to debugging Boost libraries in
> Visual Studio (3 to be exact, links below) which would be of interest
> to me if implemented on a larger and more complete scale.  Modifying
> autoexp.dat to allow Boost classes to be visualized is non-intrusive
> and ideal IMHO, although, one could still argue it's just a workaround
> for a deficient debugger  ;)

Thanks for the links.  I'll definitely use the ptr container additions.   
Still, I've tried to find a solution for boost::optional some time ago and  
failed.  The link that mentions it is for only int64, and not a general  
solution.  I'll try to tackle the problem again with autoexp.dat.   
However, I've failed previously, and don't expect better results this time  
around.

Jeff Faust