Subject: Re: [boost] [Stacktrace] Second review begins today 17th Mar ends 26th Mar
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-27 02:11:57
On 3/17/2017 11:09 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost-users wrote:
> I am pleased to announce the second review of the proposed
> Boost.Stacktrace library running from today until Sunday 26th.
> Stacktrace is an optionally header-only library providing multiple
> implementation backends. At its very simplest it lets you capture the
> stack backtrace for the calling thread and to print it to a
> std::ostream& of your choice. The basic_stacktrace<> class quacks
> like a STL container of frame object instances. The rest of the API
> pretty much follows STL design principles for the most part. Use is
> therefore unsurprising.
> You can find the documentation at
> http://apolukhin.github.io/stacktrace/index.html and the github repo
> at https://github.com/apolukhin/stacktrace.
This is my review of the stacktrace library.
> For your review you may wish to consider the following questions:
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
The design is straightforward and easy to use.
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
As others have said the windows.h issue should be addressed. Otherwise
the implementation looks good.
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The doc could be expanded with some basic information about the
stacktrace and frame classes and how they relate. I know the modern
documentation method is some sort of tutorial with examples, and then a
reference, but I always welcome some basic explanations, even in a
library whose interfaces are as simple as stacktrace. So I would like to
see the doc expanded with some more explanation about stacktraces and
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
I think it will be useful to programmers as an alternative to visual
debuggers. Its usefulness is based on its ability to show function
information in its stacktracing.
> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you
> have any problems?
Tried with VS2014. No problems with the output. I did not try with clang
or gcc on Linux or Windows.
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
> quick reading? In-depth study?
A quick reading and trying it out to see if it actually works as advertised.
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I have used stacktraces in many programming environments to debug
> And finally, every review should attempt to answer this question:
> - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost
I vote to accept the library. I think the library author still has some
work to do, but I believe that the library is useful enough, and uses
the right approach with the different backends, to be accepted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk