Re: [boost] [Backtrace] Any interest in portable stack trace?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Backtrace] Any interest in portable stack trace?
From: Daniel Larimer (dlarimer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-24 02:06:02

On Oct 24, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Artyom wrote:

>> 
>> I am very  interested, but when I attempted to link your code I got the 
>> following  error:
>> 
>> Undefined symbols:
>>   "boost::stack_trace::write_symbols(void* const*, int,  
>> std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&)", referenced  from:
>>       boost::backtrace::trace(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char>  
>>> &) const in libfl_scheduler-1.a(scheduler.cpp.o)
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> What is the platform/compiler do you try to compile on?
gcc, mac.   

> 
> Because each ifdef provide write_symbols.
> Are you sure you compile and link your code correctly?
> 
>> In the code you  provided I saw backtrace.hpp and backtrace.cpp, neither one 
>> provides an  implementation for boost::track_trace::write_symbols, what am I  
>> missing?
>> 
> 
> How can this be? It implemented in backtrace.cpp at lines
> 

It was a sad case of thinking I had searched the cpp when I was really looking in the hpp combined with a makefile misconfiguration where I thought I was linking in the library on my platform, but in actuality was not.   

All is good and working now.  Sorry for the false alarm. 

> - line 123 for Linux/Solaris/Mac using GCC
> - line 174 for Linux/Solaris/Mac using other compilers
> - line 253 for MSVC/Windows
> - line 286 for other generic trace
> 
> Artyom
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost