Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-15 19:05:58

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 16/12/2016 12:11, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>
>> The config macro to disable the stacktrace doesn't satisfy me. First,
>> because it is a way to opt out whereas I believe such a feature should
>> be an opt in as it is expensive. Second, because it doesn't work with
>> compiled binaries (e.g. distributed in package distros and Boost
>> installers). Third, I suspect this feature could be useful in a subset
>> of source code, e.g. a particular set of function calls or a scope,
>> while not so useful in other places of the application. For instance,
>> one might want to temporarily enable it to debug a particular place of
>> code without affecting the rest of the program. For that the feature
>> should be configurable in runtime.
>>
>
> I'm curious whether your answer would change if your first two objections
> were invalid, ie. if it were not expensive and if it could be used for
> optimised and stripped binaries.
>
> (Regarding that latter point, that's what both Nat and I [in the
> pre-review] were talking about as a feature request, that the raw trace
> could be serialised and decoded later on a separate machine with access to
> the corresponding symbol files.  This practice is not uncommon in Windows
> with minidumps and pdb files.)

+1

Emil