From: Jeffrey Faust (jefffaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-23 08:20:56
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> I'm not against making things debugger-friendly, but not at the cost of
> performance. Also, I find the objections about having different layouts
It would only be for a "debug" build--where the extra information would be
usable, and where the user has made some explicit choice that performance
is not as important as extra information. That's the idea behind a
checked STL implementation, which will assert if it detects something
The issue of different layouts is a problem. I had not considered that.
Now that it's been brought up 3 times, I'm thouroughly aware of it ;)
> Other than that, I know that at least GDB and MS debugger can be
> scripted and that it might be a different approach that is non-intrusive.
I have tried to modify autoexp.dat in the past, but have failed. I'll
give it another try before looking for another solution.
Thanks for the feedback,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk