Re: [boost] [stacktrace] Stacktrace library review

Subject: Re: [boost] [stacktrace] Stacktrace library review
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-14 17:02:08

On 15/12/2016 08:01, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> I've tried to do the same thing and failed:
> * BOOST_FORCEINLINE may be ignored by compilers (and even worse -
> produces a warning on some platforms when it is ignored).
> * skipping predefined frames count fail too - depending on the
> compiler/flags/version/platform different inlinement heuristics are
> used and a chance of skipping useful frames appears
>
> I'll try to do some more tweaking with BOOST_FORCEINLINE + warning
> suppression. It may get better, but in some cases will continue to
> output internals in backtraces.

Is it possible to identify internal code by address rather than frame 
count?  At least the start address of internal methods should be readily 
obtainable, although lengths are perhaps more problematic.

Perhaps the same mechanisms used to turn trace addresses into 
module/function information could also be used to filter out internal 
frames after the fact?