Re: [boost] Boost Lite Version

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Lite Version
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-14 04:40:21

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean-Sebastien Stoezel" <js.stoezel_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Lite Version

> 
> Vicente:
> 
> As I said in my email, it would be 30% of a couple hundreds kbytes of  
> ROM and 30% of a couple dozens of RAM.

Sorry I mis this. This is not too much space. Maybe you need to include the .cpp files that you need in your specific application, so you use just the minimum.
If I've understood you want to stub the parts you don't need, isn't it?

> To give you an example, lately I have been using FreeRTOS. This RTOS  
> is not POSIX and not supported by Boost. However I would like my  
> applications to be able to start a FreeRTOS taks using the thread  
> library. Same with semaphores.

I don't know if there are a lot of people concerned by using Boost on FreeRTOS. What do you propose exactly?
 
Best,
Vicente

> On 13-Mar-09, at 8:46 AM, Vicente Botet Escriba wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Sebastien stoezel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been using Boot for desktop applications and I'm very happy
>>> with it. It allows me to write portable and reusable code on all the
>>> platforms I've been supporting.
>>>
>>> I also develop C++ applications for small embedded devices, that have
>>> very limited ROM and RAM capabilities (several hundreds of kilo bytes
>>> of ROM and dozens of kilobytes of RAM). The Boost libraries cannot be
>>> used as is for these devices, since the OSes (RTOS I should say) that
>>> run on these devices are not supported by Boost. Then my code for
>>> these devices is not as portable and reusable as I which it would be.
>>> I've developed my own accross-platform generic interface for these
>>> devices and it's starting to look like Boost... Except it's not Boost
>>> and it's still very proprietary, in the niche sense.
>>>
>>> I am very interested in having a (real) lite version of Boost for
>>> these embedded devices, even if it only consists of stub functions.
>>>
>>> Is there already an on going effort to do this? Again, the idea is a
>>> lite version, something that would fit in less than 30% of the memory
>>> of a microcontroller.
>>>
>>> Jean-Sebastien
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to have some clarifications.
>>
>> Most of the boost libraries are header only; Is it about the size of  
>> the
>> static/shared compiled libraries you are tallking?
>> How many 30% of the memory of a microcontroller represents? What is  
>> the size
>> of the libraries you need?
>> Could you state what do you need that it is not portable on your  
>> platform?
>> I don't know what can  be done with a lite version (with stubs),  
>> could you
>> eleborate?
>> Have you tried to port the parts of Boost you need and don't work on  
>> your
>> platform?
>>
>> I think most of the concerned authors will apreciate a patch?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vicente
>> -- 
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Boost-Lite-Version-tp22496134p22496717.html
>> Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>