- Boost-users - lists.boost.org

[Test] Compilation problem
by Greg Ravikovich 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hello, I'm using boost 1.37 and have the following problem: A blank cpp file containing only: #include <boost/test/test_case_template.hpp> fails to compile on vc9. However a blank cpp containing: #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <boost/test/test_case_template.hpp> compiles fine. A file containing #include <boost/test/test_case_template.hpp> #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> won't compile as well. Is this intentional? Or is there a missing include directive inside test_case_template? Thanks, Greg

2 1

boost test with assert()
by Hicham Mouline 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hello, I use this test class: class SimulationIdTest { public: static void TestDestructorAfterAddRemoveSimulation(); static void TestDestructorAfterAddRemoveContractSimulation(); static void AddTests(boost::unit_test::test_suite* suite); }; TestDestructorxxx() are written so that the code inside, indirectly, throws an assert(false) (not my code) I would like to test that indeed, it does throw the assert(false). void SimulationIdTest::AddTests(boost::unit_test::test_suite* suite) { suite->add(BOOST_TEST_CASE(TestDestructorAfterAddRemoveSimulation), 1); } I tried the above by saying there would be 1 failure, however the test suite stops on that failure ( the assert(false) ), even the second argument of suite->add is 1. Is there a solution to this case? Regards,

2 1

tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
by Stjepan Rajko 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hi Paul, On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Paul Baxter <pauljbaxter(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: >> I would like to make some suggestion to improve the review management: > > <valid points snipped> > > Whilst I understand your points, unlike our day job, people do have other > more pressing commitments and, for many, the extensive effort given to > reviewing boost libraries is time given in an ad-hoc manner. > > Whilst it is good to have the timetable and a specific method for submitting > reviews, I don't think we need to go further and be more regimented. The > existing flexibility is a positive part of the process, IMHO. I also tend to prefer flexibility when people are volunteering their time. > > [ I do have problems with some libraries actually getting to the point of > review before interest, maturity of interface or implementation are right, > but that doesn't apply here and has been covered in previous discussions.] > I think I was guilty of this / have been bit by this myself. Anyway, there are two things that I think can help here: * requiring a certain number of committed reviewers before scheduling a review * the review manager being more active in examining the library before the actual review About the latter - in both reviews I managed, there was a number of issues (e.g., documentation shortfalls) that came up during the review that I, as review manager, could have discussed privately with the author beforehand had I done a more thorough review of the library. These issues could have been fixed before a review was scheduled, and the reviews could have been more focused on other issues. The review process page states: "The Review Manager... Checks the submission to make sure it really is complete enough to warrant formal review. See the Boost Library Requirements and Guidelines. If necessary, work with the submitter to verify the code compiles and runs correctly on several compilers and platforms." Well, in both cases I had examined the library, tried it on several compilers, read the docs, glanced at the implementation, etc. But it wasn't a thorough review. I think, had I actually gone through the reviewer's list of questions and wrote a full review, it would have given the authors some idea of possible areas that can be improved before the review (being careful not to react prematurely in possibly contentious areas where the opinion of just one person is not enough). Doing something like this would require additional effort from the review manager, but I think it would result in a much better review (and one where it is possibly easier to make a decision because there are fewer remaining problems). Best, Stjepan

2 2

error LNK2019: :assertion_failed wrt boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::lock
by Joseph A. Marks 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hi! Could anyone please help me out with the following error? : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol "void __cdecl boost::assertion_failed(char const *,char const *,char const *,long)" (?assertion_failed@boost@@YAXPBD00J@Z) referenced in function "public: void __thiscall boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::lock(void)" (?lock@basic_timed_mutex@detail@boost@@QAEXXZ) Thanks in Advance! Joseph A. Marks PHONE: 612-788-9658 e-mail: josephamarks(a)yahoo.com

1 0

tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
by Stjepan Rajko 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Robert Jones <robertgbjones(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:40 AM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> > wrote: >> >> * I had notice only at the end of the the review that the review tokes >> place on two mailing lists (devel ans user). Maybe this is usaual on Boost >> reviews but I was not aware. It will be more transaparent if all the reviews >> were posted to the same mailing list, maybe a specific one should be >> created. >> > > A specific maillist for reviews strikes me as an excellent idea. In Joels' > review > of his Phoenix 2.0 library there were some outstanding contributions from > people I don't see posting very often, but who apparently feel moved to do > important stuff like reviewing. These comments did much to give me some > historical context, and understanding of structure, alternatives and > implementation > decisions. These will inevitably be lost in the general background noise of > on going developments, and it would be nice to have a clear place for these > review comments. > Perhaps it would be sufficient to *strongly stress* that any post related to the ongoing review should have [review] in the subject line? (although that doesn't address the problem of having the review on both the dev and user lists...) Stjepan

1 0

asio: i/o cancellation under Linux/ARM broken?
by Stefan Sichler 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hello, I'm developing a major application using asio that is ported to Windows x86/ia64, Linux x86 and Linux on an ARM processor. It seems i/o cancellation is broken on Linux/ARM, which is a major problem for me. I added a small test case below for demonstration. On Windows, the test case will work correctly, running the loop 10 times. On Linux, it will hang after the first loop pass. Please help! (boost 1.37, Debian Linux 2.6.27) Regards, Stefan Sichler >> code follows: #ifdef WIN32 #define BOOST_ASIO_ENABLE_CANCELIO #endif #include <iostream> #include <boost/asio.hpp> using namespace std; using namespace boost::asio; using namespace boost::asio::ip; // boost asio cancellation testcase bool g_io_completed= false; void completionHandler(const boost::system::error_code& err, size_t bt) { cout<<"completed err="<<err<<" bt="<<bt<<endl; g_io_completed= true; } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { io_service ios; udp::socket sock(ios); sock.open(udp::v4()); sock.bind(udp::endpoint()); cout<<"note: if this test hangs, the cancel test failed!"<<endl; char buf[64]; for (int i=0; i<10; ++i) { cout<<"loop start i="<<i<<endl; g_io_completed= false; sock.async_receive(buffer(buf),completionHandler); for (int t=0; t<1000; ++t) // spend some time.... ios.poll(); sock.cancel(); while (!g_io_completed) // wait for completion handler ios.poll(); cout<<"loop end i="<<i<<endl; } cout<<"cancel test completed successfully!"<<endl; return 0; }

1 0

[boost users] [signal] problem solved
by Oliver Kania 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hello ! Please forget my previous mail about getting a NULL connection. Best regards, Oliver

1 0

[lambda] Can't see the wood for the trees"
by Robert Jones 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

I have a little code snippet... #include <iostream> #include "boost/range.hpp" #include "boost/function.hpp" #include "boost/lambda/lambda.hpp" int main( ) { using namespace boost::lambda; typedef int block[2][4]; boost::function< int(boost::range_value< block >::type) > third = _1[2]; block values = {{0,1,2,3},{4,5,6,7}}; std::for_each(boost::begin(values), boost::end(values), std::cout << third << "\n" ); } which I want to print the third element of each row of values. I can see that what I've written is not quite right, since the compiler quite reasonably complains that it doesn't kknow how to print a function object, but I can't seem to write the correct incantation! The error message, if it helps is... $ g++ -o junk.exe junk.cpp junk.cpp: In copy constructor `std::basic_ios<char, std::char_traits<char> >::basic_ios(const std::basic_ios<char, std:: char_traits<char> >&)': /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.4/include/c++/bits/ios_base.h:781: error: `std::ios_base::ios_base(const std::ios_base&) ' is private junk.cpp:17: error: within this context junk.cpp: In function `int main()': junk.cpp:17: error: initializing argument 3 of `_Function std::for_each(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _Function) [wi th _InputIterator = int (*)[4], _Function = std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >]' /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.4/include/c++/bits/stl_algo.h: In function `_Function std::for_each(_InputIterator, _Inp utIterator, _Function) [with _InputIterator = int (*)[4], _Function = std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >] ': junk.cpp:17: instantiated from here /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/3.4.4/include/c++/bits/stl_algo.h:158: error: no match for call to `(std::basic_ostream<char , std::char_traits<char> >) (int[4])' Thank Folks! - Rob.

1 0

[boost-users][signal] When can a connection become NULL ?
by Oliver Kania 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

Hello, I have the problem of a connection becoming invalid (being set to NULL) even though none of the things mentioned in the signals documentation happens: Signal/slot disconnections occur when any of these conditions occur: - The connection is explicitly disconnected via the connection's disconnectmethod directly, or indirectly via the signal's disconnect method or scoped_connection's destructor. - A trackable object bound to the slot is destroyed. - The signal is destroyed. Is anyone aware of other conditions under which a connection could become NULL ? Here is a code snippet: ----------------------------------------------------------------- boost::signal<int(vtkLookupTable*)> m_signal; boost::signals::connection m_connection; .... CScalarBarLayerGeometry* l_receive = cast_poly<CScalarBarLayerGeometry*>(p_layer->GetGeometry()) m_connection = m_signal.connect(boost::bind(&CScalarBarLayerGeometry::SetLookupTable,l_receive, _1)); ------------------------------------------------------------------- The first time I invoke m_connection.connected() it returns true. The second time it returns false and the connection is NULL. Any help would be appreciated. Best regards, Oliver

1 0

[multiindex] Why not to add B+Tree index to multiIndex?
by fgmailbox 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

2008-11-21 fgmailbox 发件人： fgmailbox 发送时间： 2008-11-21 11:41:59 收件人： 49259BE6.8010704; joaquin 抄送：主题： Re: [Boost-users] [multiindex] Why not to add B+Tree index to multiIndex? To: "boost-users(a)lists.boost.org" <boost-users(a)lists.boost.org> Message-ID: <49259BE6.8010704(a)tid.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 fgmailbox escribi??: > we can use multiindex as a memory db,but the multiindex only support > hash index and Order index(RB TREE),why not to add b+ Tree Index to > multiindex to make it much faster . I'm no expert in B+ trees, but I understand that these structures are more effective than regular binary trees when secondary storage (i.e. hard disk) is used, which is not the case for an in-memory container like multi_index_container. Have you any reference on the performance of B+ trees in in-memory scenarios? Joaqu??n M L??pez Mun~oz Telef??nica, Investigaci??n y Desarrollo Hi joaquin: I found b+ Tree code in a GNU Database Source Code of [firebird] Database code BePlusTree< > template class In [tree.h],your can find this source code in http://sourceforge.net template < typename Value, typename Key = Value, typename Allocator = MallocAllocator, typename KeyOfValue = DefaultKeyValue<Value>, typename Cmp = DefaultComparator<Key>, int LeafCount = LEAF_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(Value), nt NodeCount = NODE_PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(void*) > class BePlusTree {....} the Allocator can be a memory allocator or a disk file allocator,so this template can use as a memory database index ,and I have use the template to test BePlusTree and stl::set to test performance, the BePlusTree is faster than set in the condition of large scale data query. 2008-11-21 fgmailbox

2 1