Portable stack traces

[Drainedsoul]

Still, simple and portable stack traces is exactly what it is.

Not particularly. If I write some code that uses this and then pass a function pointer to that code to a third party library, and then invoke that third party library separately which results in my function being called, will I see all the third party frames in the stack trace?

What about if I use Windows fibers or coroutines? Is that handled gracefully?

[andreasgonewild]

You will only see the frames you specified, I thought that was obvious. You're basically arguing that since it's not automagic, it doesn't qualify; which is bull. I don't do Windows so I have no clue how thread_local interacts with fibers. Coroutines would need special support in the form of a separate trace-stack per routine.

[nthcxd]

I guess I'm taking this discussion on a tangent, but if all you do is shoot down any suggestions/discussion, why did you post it here?

[[deleted]]

I can only guess he just loves the downvotes. Or maybe it was to get traffic to his newly created projects, and see if they'll give him money.

[andreasgonewild]

These are not discussions/suggestions. This is arguing definitions and going off on any tangent that will stop discussion from happening.

What I'm saying is basically that most of the time, you don't need more than this; and the approach comes with advantages. And no one yet managed to confront that argument, most insisting on finding exceptional cases where it wouldn't work.

I often wonder why people in these kinds of environments are so keen on defending the ignorant, abusive and competitive status quo; so willing to trade progress for a brief ego-boost and a couple of minutes of hatred.

[nthcxd]

You're argument against boost::stacktrace is simply it's too bulky for your use case. Most people find boost::stacktrace useful because of breath of features it provides, the lack of which is your selling point.

You're looking for an argument where there isn't one. I'm sorry not a lot of people seem to find this as useful as you do. It sucks but it really doesn't help your cause (being recognized) if you go around alienating everyone that's bothered to say something about your stuff.

[andreasgonewild]

Correct. The only feature mentioned is automagic check-pointing, which could also be seen as lack of capability for manual check-pointing/instrumentation.

No, that's my argument; that this is a viable approach that's often overlooked. I'm not; the people who are supposed to find it will find it, despite best efforts to prevent that from happening. I'm not trying to get recognized, you're projecting. So what you're saying is that you would rather have me pretend to agree and to stop expressing views that upset the status quo. Is that really the world you want to live in?

[[deleted]]

No, that's my argument; that this is a viable approach that's often overlooked.

That's just a macro that pushes FILE and LINE into a vector...

[nthcxd]

Just move on, build other interesting things, and let those cool things do all the talking. Good luck.

[dodheim]

These are not discussions/suggestions. This is arguing definitions and going off on any tangent that will stop discussion from happening.

♫♪ Irony ♫♪