Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Yes. I personally very much believe the library should be accepted. I myself use a similar facility to identify and to address a problem promptly when reported by a customer. I am fortunate to only work on Linux. Having a multi-platform community-reviewed community-tested facility would be a much better solution. I have not used the library. However, when it's in Boost I'll make use of it immediately. Can't say much about implementation either. However, the interface and the output seemed straightforward and sensible... Although in my implementation I decided not to report the superfluous 0# boost::stacktrace::detail::backend::backend(void**, unsigned long) Additionally the number of macros seemed surprisingly high and I might say worrisome. Are they really that unavoidable? After all, it's almost 2017 outside. Secondly, when it crashes out there on the customer site, I want as much info as I can get. So, if the default mode is configured accordingly and, consequently, eases the deployment, that'd be of great plus.