stacktrace VS cpptrace

I do know Boost.Stacktrace calls addr2line too. From the code(https://github.com/boostorg/stacktrace/blob/develop/include/...), it seems Boost.Stacktrace also shells out to addr2line for every address. But in practice, I found the overhead of boost::stacktrace::stacktrace() is not as horrendous as my crappy implementation, which calls addr2line, too.

I am guessing how bad it really is to simply throw some custom exception along with useful message and status code along with stack trace instead of simply returning failure status code. This way we can have single try-catch at the top level function eliminating hundreds of if-checks. Inside that catch block we can print stack trace we will know exact call hierarchy and line number that caused exception. For example a cpptrace library define custom exceptions that extend std:: exceptions and inject stack trace that can be printed with simple function call. This will also eliminate any possible tricky bug that may get introduced by forgetting to check status code returned by any function since exceptions are forced to be dealt with or else we can get failure stack trace.