Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review, please stop discussing non-Stacktrace issues
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-18 12:26:33
After this discussion, I can suggest the following changes to the library:
- the part that captures a stack trace and the part that resolves it to
function/file/line should be separate, and usable without each other.
- ideally, both ought to be async safe, or as async safe as possible on the
- there should be a low-level API that is async safe, and a high level API
that is not necessarily such.
- macOS should be supported.
- the library should not #include <windows.h>. The part of the Windows
backend that needs <windows.h> should be a separately-compiled library.
What I can suggest as a low-level API is:
typedef void (*stacktrace_frame)(); // a bit on the pedantic side, but why
size_t stacktrace_capture( stacktrace_frame buffer, size_t size );
void stracktrace_resolve_frame( stacktrace_frame address, char function,
size_t fnsize, char file, size_t filesize, size_t & line );
typedef void (*stacktrace_resolve_callback)( stacktrace_frame address, char
const * function, char const * file, size_t line );
void stacktrace_resolve( stacktrace_frame const trace, size_t size, char
function, size_t fnsize, char file, size_t filesize,
stacktrace_resolve_callback callback );
On Windows, I see stacktrace_capture as header-only and async-safe, and
stacktrace_resolve as separately compiled and maybe-mostly-safe, as today.
On Mac OS X, stacktrace_capture can use ::backtrace and stacktrace_resolve
can use the atos utility instead of addr2line.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk