Subject: [boost] Stacktrace library starts review today 14th Dec
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-14 03:43:58
The formal review of the Stacktrace library by Antony Polukhin starts
today 14th Dec and will conclude before Christmas. I appreciate we
are likely a bit tired out from the many library reviews recently and
of course it's Christmas, but given the lack of a portable way to
work with stack backtraces, which you inevitably need to do
eventually in any non-toy production application, Stacktrace needs
Stacktrace is an optionally header-only library providing four
implementation backends, libunwind (POSIX only), windbg (Windows
only), backtrace (from the C library on most POSIX implementations)
and a null backend. At its very simplest it lets you capture the
stack backtrace for the calling thread and to print it to a
std::ostream& of your choice. The basic_stacktrace<> class quacks
like a STL container of frame object instances. The rest of the API
pretty much follows STL design principles for the most part. Use is
You can find the documentation at
http://apolukhin.github.io/stacktrace/index.html and the github repo
Reviews should be submitted to the developer list
(boost_at_[hidden]), preferably with '[stacktrace]' in the
subject. Or if you don't wish to for some reason or are not
subscribed to the developer list you can send them privately to me at
's_sourceforge at nedprod dot com'. If so, please let me know whether
or not you'd like your review to be forwarded to the list.
For your review you may wish to consider the following questions:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation? Most of my
personal concerns with this library are with the implementation and I
would hugely appreciate feedback from others with substantial
experience of using stacktracing "in anger" in non-trivial use case
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you
have any problems?
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
quick reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
And finally, every review should attempt to answer this question:
- Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost
Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't
obscure your overall opinion.
Even if you do not wish to give a full review any technical comment
regarding the library is welcome as part of the review period and
will help me as the review manager decide whether the library should
be accepted as a Boost library. Any questions about the use of the
library are also welcome.
Finally, thanks to Edward whose announcement of the Synapse library
review I borrowed heavily from as I thought it very well structured.
Hopefully the above is just as clear.
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk