May 2025 - Boost-users - lists.boost.org

boost::process v1 broken in 1_88_0
by Sebastian Koerner 02 Jun '25

02 Jun '25

Hi Boost-Users, I understand that boost process has v2 and v1 is deprecated, but I thought v1 will at least work on for existing stuff. Between 1_87 and 1_88 process v1 stopped working with v1 code. Something changed v1-incompatible with the includes, like: boost::process::child is unknown. error: ‘child’ is not a member of ‘boost::process’ 73 | std::vector<boost::process::child> m_processes; Is this known or easy-to fix?

2 2

[boost] [openmethod] Peer review conclusion
by Дмитрий Архипов 28 May '25

28 May '25

Dear Boost community, the formal review of candidate Boost.OpenMethod has taken place between 28th of April and May 7th. I have received 6 reviews in total. Four of the reviews recommended unconditional, and 1 conditional acceptance. One reviewer recommended to reject the library. The reviews came from: - Joaquin M López Muñoz, - Christian Mazakas, - Ruben Perez, - Yannick Le Goc, - Klemens Morgenstern, - Andrzej Krzemienski. Also, several people have given insightful comments but did not provide a review. I would like to thank all of the people who took their time to write reviews or participate in the discussions. Your effort was very important and valuable. The outcome of the review is that Boost.OpenMethod is ACCEPTED with some CONDITIONS. 1. The convenience header <boost/openmethod.hpp> should be changed to not introduce identifiers to the global namespace. Reviewers suggested several alternatives to that: either moving those global entities into an alternative header, or put them into a dedicated namespace which users could use via using namespace. 2. The library should not choose an arbitrary ambiguous overrider. Virtually all reviewers have expressed strong dislike for this behaviour. The default should be an error. More lax overrider selection may be provided as an option. 3. The library's documentation should be improved in several areas: * The concepts used by the documentation should be explained early on and more thoroughly. * The library should not claim to implement N2216, as it diverges from it significantly. Instead it may remark on being inspired by it. * Better explain potential platform-specific limitations of certain use cases (runtime loading of shared libraries) and error conditions. In addition, I want to discuss several criticisms that have been expressed during the review. One is that essentially the library doesn't solve a problem that is worth solving. That is, you never need an open set of types combined with an open set of operations. I believe that 10 years of library's use should mostly dispel such concerns. I personally have also encountered such a situation in my practice. The second criticism is that the flexibility of the library comes with higher chance of programmer error, as some usual safe guards go out the window. I can attest that in "many types, many operations" situations alternative approaches are comparably error-prone. It seems to me that this is largely inherent to the complexity of the problem. My advice to the author is to highlight dangerous situations, so that potential users can better evaluate if the added flexibility is worth it. Thanks to Jean-Louis Leroy for submitting this library to Boost. And thanks again to the reviewers and everyone who provided feedback, who ultimately made this review possible.

1 0

How to replace get_io_service()/get_io_context()-calls
by Klebsch, Mario 21 May '25

21 May '25

Hello, I have been using boost::asio for about a decade. I was using boost-1_63. I use get_io_service() (e.g. on a socket) to get a reference to the io_context, e.g. to post(…) on that io_context. I have read, that get_io_service() got deprecated and was removed. I now am facing, the challenge to find a replacement for get_io_service(). I found https://stackoverflow.com/a/39447000/6832488 suggesting to use get_executor().context() as a replacement for get_io_service(). And although the reference returned from get_executor().context() points to the same address as my io_context, it does have the wrong type. I cannot do socket.get_executor().context().post(…). I also found https://stackoverflow.com/a/67773642/6832488, suggesting to (C-Style)cast s to (boost::asio::io_context&). > #define GET_IO_SERVICE(s) ((boost::asio::io_context&)(s).get_executor().context()) But trying C++ (more or less) type safe to static_cast< boost::asio::io_context&>(s) fails to compile. I found that I misinterpreted > ((boost::asio::io_context&)(s).get_executor().context()) to cast (s) to ((boost::asio::io_context&). When I use > static_cast<boost::asio::io_service&>(s.get_executor().context()) My code finally compiles. I must admit, that I find the documentation of get_executor() quiet useless. Btw, Boost.org seems to be useless, too. When I try to read https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference.html, I get > Error 503 first byte timeout. ☹ The documentation of basic_socket::get_io_service() in version 1_40_0 lists its signature as: > boost::asio::io_service & get_io_service(); That is useful, I can go to the documentation of boost::asio::io_service and find the methods usable on the io_service like post(). But for the current boost version 1_88_0, the signature of basic_stream_socket::get_executor() is documented as: > const executor_type & get_executor(); Ok, executor_type is documented as of basic_stream_socket::executor_type > typedef Executor executor_type; Executor is a template parameter. But when I look at ip::tcp::socket, I find: > typedef basic_stream_socket< tcp > socket; But basic_stream_socket is documented as > template< > typename Protocol, > typename Executor> > class basic_stream_socket : > public basic_socket< Protocol, Executor > Where the hell is the 2nd template parameter for basic_stream_socket? There is no default value of Executor, so how does the template instantiation of basic_stream_socket<tcp> compile? How am I supposed to find out, that I can invoke context() on the return value of get_executor()? I am totally screwed up with the documentation of current boost::asio. ☹ I hope, anybody on this mailing list can enlighten me. Many thanks in advance, Mario Klebsch Mario Funktion | R&D Tel: +49 (0) 531 38 701 718 Raum: Braunschweig, E20 Diese E-Mail und die an sie angehängten Dateien sind ausschließlich für Personen oder Institutionen bestimmt, deren Namen oben aufgeführt sind. Sie können Informationen enthalten, die durch das Berufsgeheimnis geschützt sind und deren Weitergabe strengstens untersagt ist. Jede elektronische Nachricht kann geändert werden. ACTIA lehnt jede Verantwortung für diese Nachricht ab. Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht stellt keine Verpflichtung seitens unseres Unternehmens dar. Wenn Sie kein Empfänger sind, weisen wir Sie darauf hin, dass das Lesen, Vervielfältigen oder Verteilen strengstens untersagt ist. Wir bitten Sie daher, uns umgehend über diesen Brief zu informieren und diese Nachricht sowie eventuell beigefügte Unterlagen aus Ihrem Postfach zu löschen. Danke. This e-mail and the files attached to it are intended exclusively for persons or institutions whose names are listed above. They may contain information that is protected by professional secrecy and the disclosure of which is strictly prohibited. Any electronic message can be modified. ACTIA declines all responsibility for this message. The content of this message does not represent a commitment on the part of our company. If you are not a recipient, we would like to point out that reading, copying or distribution is strictly prohibited. We therefore ask you to inform us immediately about this letter and to delete this message and any accompanying documents from your mailbox. Thank you.

2 1

Boost:1.82.0 ASIO changed its behavior
by Nedelin Rusev 20 May '25

20 May '25

Hi, Recently I inherited an old project, which uses boost 1.65.0 and ASIO, for custom implementation of the SCTP protocol. Technically it adapts the existing ASIO TCP for SCTP. Another implementation uses this ASIO-SCTP to asynchronously send and receive data. My task was to make both implementations work with any boost version from 1.65.0 to 1.87.0. I did the necessary changes and the project now compiles and runs, but I face a test deviation with boost versions 1.82.0 and above. The test is more or less simple: - we have pre-generated data - we start a server, which only receives data and stores it in file per connected client - we start multiple clients, each running in its own thread. Each client sends its own data to the server at a random moment - finally we check if the server has received the same data as the clients have sent. With boost versions up to 1.81.0 the test passes OK. But with boost version 1.82.0 we observe wrong order of the data stored by the server. To illustrate it roughly: Client sends: 0,1,2 Server stores: 0,2,1 (0 is OK, Next we should have 1, but we get 2). Note: the real test data is hundreds of bytes long, not single digits. Note: the test seems to have issues, but on the particular machine, the behavior is consistent: test is OK with boost 1.81.0 and NOK with boost 1.82.0 I suspect the problem has something to do with the "on_immediate()" extension, introduced in boost 1.82.0. Somehow it speeds up the client threads execution and changes the order of the sent data. I failed to find any similar problems, reported in internet (git, boost forums, etc) I have enabled BOOST_ASIO_ENABLE_HANDLER_TRACKING and, if I get the log right, client threads are executed faster. I have attached the handler tracking logs for boost versions 1.81.0 and 1.82.0. My question is how to keep the old code behavior (pre 1.82.0) with later versions? Is there any way to disable the "on_immediate()" functionality? Are there any guidelines for using later versions of boost ASIO (1.82.0 and later)? Providing a simplified example test is hard, as the code-base is quite large. I will try to make something up, but this will take time. Thank you!

2 1