Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] deferral stack overfolw
From: Richard Szabo (sz.richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-12-07 06:30:08
> Hi Richard,
> ah, how could I miss this? There is a mistake in your LogDefer functor:
> typedef int deferring_action;
Ah thanks for finding it ... I will try this out for you.
In a mean time I have implemented our own event queue.
But I will give a try to the original one ... it would be better to
use that anyhow ...
For the VC problem I had to time to play with it at all :( I found a
one line change in the boost back end to solve my problem ..... I had
to do this I was under high time pressure .....
even you disagree :(.
line : if (!handled && !is_contained() &&
changed to : if ( ( handled == HANDLED_FALSE || handled ==
HANDLED_GUARD_REJECT) && !is_contained() &&
However I will prepare you a test project with the complexity/size
similar to our current .... future size / complexity just for
experiment and also give you a strip down version of our way of
splitting the state machines maybe you can review it and give some
ideas how to do thinks better :).
But it takes some time to prepare this example and I have to check
where are the limits of sharing our code base with open source
community .... I personally would be happy to give all as it is but
the company has different view about it I believe.
I find MSM great I think it is easy to understand very expressive but
the biggest downsize is the scalability in order to use it for our
purpose, to write a complex communication protocol stack with a lot of
events and state machines connected to each other. MSM is not usable
as it is .... ( sorry to saying that It would hurt me if MSM would be
my code ) we had to put in some effort to find an semi decent way of
get around this problem ... So I think there is some work needs to be
done in this area I'm happy to help as much as I can with it ... eg
try to prepare an example project for experimenting ....
So thanks for the help ... I will come back to you when I have
something to play with but it will take some time ... hopefully it can
be a christmas persent :).
Thans for all the great support ...
> This should be defined in the functor, not inside operator(). Then there
> will be no overflow.
> PS: any news about your VC9 problem?
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk