[boost] [stacktrace] Stacktrace library review

Subject: [boost] [stacktrace] Stacktrace library review
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-14 04:55:10

> Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost
> library?

Yes. I personally very much believe the library should be accepted. I 
myself use a similar facility to identify and to address a problem 
promptly when reported by a customer. I am fortunate to only work on 
Linux. Having a multi-platform community-reviewed community-tested 
facility would be a much better solution.

I have not used the library. However, when it's in Boost I'll make use 
of it immediately. Can't say much about implementation either. However, 
the interface and the output seemed straightforward and sensible... 
Although in my implementation I decided not to report the superfluous

0# boost::stacktrace::detail::backend::backend(void**, unsigned long)

Additionally the number of macros seemed surprisingly high and I might 
say worrisome. Are they really that unavoidable? After all, it's almost 
2017 outside. Secondly, when it crashes out there on the customer site, 
I want as much info as I can get. So, if the default mode is configured 
accordingly and, consequently, eases the deployment, that'd be of great 
plus.