Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review, please stop discussing non-Stacktrace issues

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] review, please stop discussing non-Stacktrace issues
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-19 18:42:11

On 12/20/2016 09:11 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> ... Stacktrace should be able to serialise the stacktrace of an
> about to be terminated process to disc in an async-safe way in a
> format which other tooling such as addr2line or llvm-symbolizer can
> consume in combination with the debug symbols to produce an accurate
> source and line number stacktrace. Stacktrace does not need to parse
> the stacktrace in an async-safe way.

The need to have and to use an additional tool to actually see the stack 
seems like a considerable complication. To me personally printing out 
the stack-trace to the log was a quick and light-weight (but often 
sufficient) clue where to start my investigation. How is the suggested 
procedure better compared to the established on Linux -- retrieve the 
core of the failed app, run it with gdb, look at the debug symbols, 
stack-trace, etc.? I suspect a similar/same mechanism to already exist 
on Windows as well, right?