Re: [boost] Introduction and Cray support. [config] [build] [atomic] [interprocess] [asio] [dump] [tr1]

Subject: Re: [boost] Introduction and Cray support. [config] [build] [atomic] [interprocess] [asio] [dump] [tr1]
From: Marshall Clow (mclow.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-29 14:29:17

On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Richard Dale <rsd_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello world,
> 
> My name is Richard Dale.  I work at Cray, Inc.
> My purpose here is to get the boost libraries and Cray C++ compiler to work and play together better.

Welcome!

> I have a couple of questions, but maybe some background first.
> 
> The first thing I plan to do is fix up the existing config/compiler/cray.hpp and  .../v2/tools/cray.jam files.  With this done,  both the static and dynamic versions of most buildable libraries build successfully.

This seems like a great first step.

> The second thing is to address cray specific issues in the libraries listed in the subject line.  With the exception  of tr1, these are all preprocessor changes to avoid inline assembly, which the cray C++ compiler does not support yet, and probably won't anytime soon.  The tr1 change is to provide a Cray version of the macro BOOST_TR1_STD_HEADER_NAME.

A good second step.

> The third thing will be to "officialize" the cray compiler, so that it gets picked up and used by default when it is the default compiler on Cray systems.
> 
> The target is to provide good support for Cray C++ in the 1.56 release.
> 
> Once the configuration changes are done, we (Cray) will start running the regression tests on a regular basis.

Great!
That's one of the key requirements for being a "supported" compiler; having a regression tester.

> I'm a little uncertain as to how to proceed in the immediate term, especially given the impending conversion to git.   The idea of compiler support is somewhat orthogonal to the notion of library support, and there doesn't seem to be a well defined concept of compiler owner.
> 
> I seem to have couple of options.
> 
> The first option would be to get as much done as possible pre-conversion.  My assumption  is that I would check everything into the trunk, (The library changes are pretty trivial), using Trac tickets to keep the library owners in the loop.  I assume it is the individual library owners who take care of the merges from trunk to branches/release (master?), although I'm unsure where this falls on the continuum between ordinarily true and always true.

My suggestion is to open tickets with the problems that you see on your compiler, and attach patches to the tickets, and then work with the library owners to get the patches applied (first to the trunk, and then to release).

John Maddock, for example, is the maintainer of the configuration library.
[ A list of maintainers and their email addresses can be found in libs/maintainers.txt ]

> The second option would be to wait until the cutover to git, and do the workflow for making changes to a library owned by someone else.  This is probably the right thing, but I'm more fluent with svn than with git.

If you've got time and interest now, I wouldn't wait.

> So, I guess I'm looking for advice and consent here.   Please straighten me out if there is something I seem not to understand.
> 
> For what it's worth, I've made myself "champion" for the Cray compiler.  I don't pretend to know everything, but if I can't figure something out, I probably know who to ask.   I'll take any Trac tickets relating to Boost on Cray.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Idio Software   <mailto:mclow.lists_at_[hidden]>

A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
        -- Yu Suzuki