Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar

Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-21 05:49:34

2017-03-20 23:52 GMT+03:00 Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> Antony Polukhin wrote:
>
>> In the C++ standard there is no requirement that pointer to frame is a
>> pointer to function. C++ Standard does not mention frames at all and many OS
>> return frames as just a void*, not void(*)().
>
>
> That's true but you've stated that you don't want to support manually
> captured frames. So what the OS returns should be irrelevant in principle -
> it's an implementation detail that the library hides from the user.
>
> You do support frames constructed from function pointers, such as the one
> returned from ::signal, so this is what the constructor should take.
>
> The only reason to take void* would be to support passing the return value
> of dlsym to the constructor without a reinterpret_cast.
>
>> I'll add a `template <class T> frame(T* addr)`
>
>
> This will do if you also constrain it to is_function<T>.

Good points! Agreed.

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin