Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [function] Using boost::function when rtti isnot available
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-27 03:49:41

"David Genest" <david.genest_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Hi Domagoj,
> I am on xbox 360 with visual 2005, PS3 with SNSystems SNC compiler and gcc
> compiler v 4.1.1.
> I have tried your implementation and compilation fails at a STATIC_ASSERT:
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( is_stateless<base_empty_handler>::value );
> A simple declaration of boost::function<void ()> f; will create this error.
> A similar assert happens with SN systems compiler for the PS3.

hmm...according to
the is_stateless<> trait should work properly on msvc++ 8...

can you try replacing is_stateless<> with
  has_trivial_constructor<base_empty_handler>::value &&
  has_trivial_destructor<base_empty_handler>::value &&

> When I use gcc, there are a slew of errors mostly pertaining to
> declaration order in function_template.hpp. I am not very familiar
> with this issue, but have tried to move code around, and defining
> functions out of class scope. Some errors go away, but there are
> a lot of compiler problems at least on my machine.

i was afraid of that...i relied on lazy template instantiation in several
places and used forward declarations of member types (with out-of-body
definitions) to improve readability...this worked properly on msvc++ (as it is
pretty lazy with template instantiations) but gcc is obviously much less
'liberal'/permissive about that (i don't know what the standard has to say
about it?)...

> Here is the error on xbox 360:
> 1> myFile.cpp(64) : see reference to class template instantiation
> 'boost::function<Signature>' being compiled
> 1> with
> 1> [
> 1> Signature=void (void)
> 1> ]

this part looks 'wrong' if myFile.cpp still used "some part of the old
headers"...because in the new implementation the main bf template has the
following 'signature' boost::funciton<Signature, PolicyList>...perhaps you
should do a clean rebuild...(you must also rebuild boost if you use any
non-header-only libraries that internaly use boost::function)...

> There were also some trouble when compiling templates that end in ">>" which
> AFAIK is not fixed on my version of gcc.
> Do you know if your changes made boost.function less robust to older
> compilers ?

well...obviously/most probably they did unfortunately...besides avoiding sfinae
in a few places i did not spend too much effort on old compiler compatibility

i tested only on msvc++ 9.0 sp1 and 10.0b1...there it compiled without
warnings and worked correctly...but yes, this is just a prototype, draft
version on which only a limited number of, my own, tests were run (i did not
run the official boost tests...because i have yet never run those tests and do
not know how they work and because allocator support is still/currently

without ignoring the old-compilers-backward compatibility issue...considering
that the two compilers, msvc++ and gcc, you are using are ('semi') free i would
truly recommend an upgrade...yes i know you would probably have to fight some
'semi-irrational'/paranoid corporate rules and 'stiff chains of command' but,
atleast when msvc++ is concerned, it will be worth the effort as it might
actually save you time...not just on issues like these but because the msvc++
9.0 compiler is about twice as fast as the 8.0 one plus it has a working
multicore mode (the /mp switch) so on a dual core machine you get a ~4 times
faster compilation (and for almost 0 cost...the upgrade is just a reinstall...
nothing much was changed...its not like the 7.1 -> 8.0 upgrade with all the
secure crt and secure stl mess ;)

i do actually have a dusty msvc++ 8.0 sp1 installation (do you have all the
patches installed on your installation) on a different if i get
the time i'll test my code on it today and see what i can do...
(i'll start using gcc on mac osx in the following year but i doubt that is of
much use right now :)

ps. thanks for testing and reporting the errors with your tool chain ;)
...and glad to see the 'major' gaming industry is using boost ;-)

pps. found a bug:
the line
function_base.hpp :



std::memcpy( functor_ptr( out_buffer ), functor_ptr( in_buffer ),
storage_array_size );


should be:


std::memcpy( functor_ptr( out_buffer ), functor_ptr( in_buffer ),
storage_array_size * sizeof( storage_atom ) );


 "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most
important of all the lessons of history."
 Aldous Huxley 

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at