Re: [boost] [1.53] request to merge lockfree (c++11 only)

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.53] request to merge lockfree (c++11 only)
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-17 05:23:57

On 16 November 2012 11:08, Tim Blechmann <tim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> i'd therefore request permission to merge boost.lockfree into release,
> depending on std::atomic<>. this means, that it will require gcc-4.8 or
> msvc 2012 in c++11 mode to compile it (not sure about clang++, as their
> c++11 support under linux is pretty broken).

I think we should try to release lockfree in this release cycle. A
library that has passed review shouldn't be delayed indefinitely for
circumstances outside of the author's control, and releasing it might
be the impetus for someone working on atomic. I haven't checked with
the other release managers, but IIRC the past consensus was that it
should be released.

Now the box ticking...

Documentation looks okay, I'll have a quick read later. I'll add a
redirect file at 'libs/lockfree/index.html'.

You need to add the library to 'libs/libraries.htm' in the alphabetic
and category lists. Categories are up to you, but I'd expect:
containers, concurrent and maybe data structures. Link to
'libs/lockfree/index.html' - not 'doc/html/whatever'.

Unfortunately the online inspect report is out of date, so I ran it
locally and got this for lockfree:

|lockfree|
  boost/lockfree/detail/freelist.hpp:
    Boost macro deprecated in 1.51: BOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS
  boost/lockfree/detail/tagged_ptr_dcas.hpp:
    Boost macro deprecated in 1.51: BOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS
  boost/lockfree/detail/tagged_ptr_ptrcompression.hpp:
    Boost macro deprecated in 1.51: BOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS

It should be 'BOOST_NO_CXX11_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS'.

Since we know the library isn't going to work on any of the currently
tested platforms, checking the test results seems pointless. There are
a lot of failures, but if they're down to atomic not being ready, then
I guess they're acceptable? I'd normally suggest marking up the
failing test results in status/explicit-failures-markup.xml, but that
might be counter-productive if they could be fixed in atomic. Failures
due to boost dependencies are a real pain.

I think the best I can do is install gcc 4.8 on my computer and give
it a go. And ask for volunteers to do the same for the new Visual C++
and clang.