April 2008 - Boost - lists.boost.org

thoughts on logging library
by Christian Holmquist 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Hi, I saw that the previously proposed logging library went into the review queue again, so I thought of pointing out some remarks prior the actual review. First of all, I think that a boost logging library should come up with one, and one only, way of expressing a log line. BOOST_LOG(some, kind, of, args); Now, how should the interface of BOOST_LOG(...) look like? To find that out, I'll start by explaining how I would like boost log to behave from a users point of view, for instance using boost.Asio. #define BOOST_ASIO_LOG_ENABLE #define BOOST_ASIO_LOG_MIN_LEVEL boost::log::level::debug #include <boost/asio/asio.hpp> // Insert lots of broken client code here... =) What I want to do is configure the amount of logging code that gets generated inside asio, not if the logging functionality is enabled at runtime or so. Without BOOST_ASIO_LOG_ENABLE there should be no logging code, from asio, in the executable.. I could use side by side another config for another boost library #define BOOST_SERIALIZATION_LOG_ENABLE #define BOOST_SERIALIZATION_LOG_MIN_LEVEL boost::log::level::error // only care about error logs to avoid spamming, for instance.. #include <boost/serialization.hpp> So, I've only informed the libraries that I want log to be generated, not anything about where it'll end up, or what kind of information it'll contain. The author of Asio also doesn't know what kind of information that will be generated either, but can, and should, only provide what is available from the library's point of view. // somewhere in asio code BOOST_ASIO_LOG(log::level::debug, "shutting down service.."); or, another way BOOST_ASIO_LOG_DEBUG(asio::g_log, "closing socket " << native_handle_id_); something like this is what I'm used to, but it's just for discussion. in the million ++ lines of code we have in our project we configure logs depending on system and level. That's the input required to make a log statement, the rest are details filled in by the log system itself, but it's not very interesting. a log message could automatically create the following in default config. struct msg { const char* system; //i.e. "asio" const char* source_file; const char* source_line; const char* function_name; std::string user_message; }; or it could be anything else that boosters think is portable and makes sense. My point is that libraries in boost should not deal with this, they must only learn the interface and some configuration macros of boost log (for handling the compile time enable/disable of loggin macros), and then provide the log system with the information -they have-, the rest is config details (such as log sinks and formatters). Configuring the above with a compiled library like boost serialization is an interesting task as well, that I definitely think should be addressed. could be that the flexibility decreases some in such a scenario, or it could be configued in site-config.jam or whatever. Is this along the line what boost.log has in mind, or will it be a logging library not to be used by the boost libraries themselves? Regards, Christian

3 8

Enum naming conventions
by Maciej Sobczak 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Hi, Is there an established naming convention for enum names in Boost? I don't see anything truly consistent. Consider this: enum eGrays { eBlack, eDarkGray, eGray, eLightGray, eWhite }; Is this commonly accepted by the Boost community? If not, what alternative naming for the above would you propose? Regards, -- Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com

4 4

[test] reporting problems from tests
by Maxim Yanchenko 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Hi Gennadiy! I'm using Boost.Test 1.34.1. I have some questions: 1) Is it possible to customize the output? As I see in boost/test/impl/compiler_log_formatter.ipp: void compiler_log_formatter::print_prefix( std::ostream& output, const_string file, std::size_t line ) { output << file << '(' << line << "): "; } This is MSVC compiler output syntax, and integrates with MSVS only. But many other compilers (at least gcc, suncc) and unix tools like grep print their messages in the form "filename:line: ", and there are many tools/IDEs supporting exactly this format but not "filename(line): ". Is it possible to customize it? Maybe by using Boost.Format, or any kind of config #define, or anything else. 2) timeout. You working with timeout using SIGALRM, but this interferes affects sleep(), alarm() etc. You can read about it here: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/sleep.html To me, it looks dangerous as there are many applications calling sleep(). What do you think? 3) --catch_system_errors Is it possible to set it to false by default? Everybody wants to have a core dump if the program crashed, the only scenario when cores are unwelcome - huge test suits with many-many binaries, when crashing tests can just exhaust disk space. But such huge test suits will be run from scripts where the number of parameters doesn't matter. But when I run a single test manually - I (and everybody I know) expect it to crash, to have a possibility to dive into the core with the debugger. You know the errors leading to crashes are usually very hard to reproduce, so it's quite frustrating when you lose a chance to understand an error just because you forgot to type this "--catch_system_errors=no" or forgot to setup environment variable. I just faced this problem. The test crashed but no core was dumped. Immediate rerun gave no crash. So I just ran the test in cycle and only after two(!) hours it finally crashed. That's why I'm voting for setting crash the default option. For now I just went to the boost sources and changed the code to make "no" default option. But I'm looking for more elegant solution. For example, why not to place all default values to config defines like BOOST_TEST_DEFAULT_SOMETHING? 4) I finally found the problem in the crashing test - it crashed inside Boost.Test due to parallel calls to Boost.Test checks. Any plans to do anything with this? 5) Printing objects in failed tests For example, what if I have BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(a,b) and there is no operator<< defined in the classes? Or they're defined, but do something that I don't want to see in this particular test output (because it dumps the object in binary form, for example)? Is it possible to customize this somehow, e.g. by passing a printing functor as a third parameter, or any other way? Bests, Maxim

2 1

A C++ puzzler
by Eric Niebler 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

I recently had a C++ problem and found an answer that tickled my brain. In the spirit of Car Talk on NPR, I thought I'd share it in the form of a puzzler. Say that you are given a set of types, and you must find the "common" type, where common is defined as follows: - If all the types are the same, say X, then the common type is X - If some types are X and some are Default (where Default is a known special type), the common type is X - If some types are X and some are Y (and neither X nor Y is Default), then there is no common type. It's an error and you should issue a diagnostic. So for example: [Default, Default, Default] --> Default [Default, A, Default] --> A [B, B, B] --> B [Default, C, D] --> Error, issue diagnostic. And here's the kicker ... do it in O(1). No O(N) recursive template instantiations allowed. Assume that the maximum size of the set is known ahead of time. Answer next week, unless someone beats me to it. -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

11 25

[smart_ptr] small step approach
by Daniel Frey 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

Hi, since passing or not passing the deleter to sp_accept_owner seems controversial, I'd like to try another approach: Smaller patches/steps. The attached patch is a minimalistic version of my previous patches. It doesn't change sp_accept_owner's current design. With this patch, I'd be able to implement my own, optimized version of enable_shared_from_this, which is otherwise not possible. Do you see any problem with this patch or with the approach in general? Regards, Daniel

1 0

High Cost of MS "Safe" STL for Release Builds
by Mat Marcus 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

### Overview ### In a recent thread regarding issues in the boost::System library, we began a discussion on the performance cost, *in release builds*, of accepting the default Microsoft compiler setting that enables the so-called secure STL feature. In this post I am adding some source code excerpts, from a colleague's benchmark suite, that I used to generate the results (reproduced below). I am also changing the subject line to better reflect the topic under discussion. Summary: In VC8 (Dev Studio 2005) and later, Microsoft's 'secure' STL feature (enabled by default) can cause a slowdown of more than an order of magnitude in the execution of performance critical algorithms in release builds. I suspect that many projects would benefit from ensuring that _SECURE_SCL=0 for release configurations. I recommend that boost ships with this feature disabled by default for (at least) release builds. Microsoft product managers claim that the performance cost for release builds is negligible. For example, Peter Dimov cited a thread that lead me to the following claim: Martyn Lovell> I strongly recommend against turning off Martyn Lovell> _SECURE_SCL. The perf win is normally minor, and Martyn Lovell> the security risk is much higher. If you find a Martyn Lovell> major perf issue with _SECURE_SCL, please let us Martyn Lovell> know. http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=863481&SiteID=1#882374 The benchmarks below offer a different view of the performance costs. (Please don't confuse this discussion with the separate feature controlling compiler warnings. In some configurations, the MS compiler warning that routines like std::copy are inherently unsafe. The original text of the warnings claimed that such routines had been "deprecated". We have not deprecated such routines in the C++ committee. The _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE can be used to control such warnings, but this issue is separate from the performance impact of the _SECURE_SCL feature.) A colleague has been developing some benchmarks that aim to help compiler vendors ensure that they properly support C++ programming, and to help programmers understand the costs of the algorithms and data structures that they use. Instead of using his suite to measure the relative performance of different compilers, I ran some tests completely under VC 9 to measure only the Release build performance of the 'secure' STL. (Interestingly, the penalty seems to have increased from VC8 to VC9. But the numbers for VC8 are also disheartening.) ### Details ### I ran the stepanov_vector benchmark (excerpted below) twice, once with default boost build settings ("secure" STL enabled) and once with it turned off. That is, I built with settings roughly equivalent to: bjam release bjam release define=_SCL_SECURE=0 This benchmark attempts, amongst other things, to measure the abstraction penalty by comparing the performance of different algorithms when using a vendor's vector with associated iterator type vs. an array with pointers. When reading the results below, 'double pointer' denotes a test using an array of doubles (pointer iterators), where 'double vector' means a vector of doubles (vector::iterator). Note that sometimes the penalty exceeds an order of magnitude . In light of these results, one could argue that_SECURE_SCL for release builds is a misfeature. I won't debate whether it is worth the slowdown for normal (non-extreme) debugging situations. Results follow for 'secure' STL and then normal STL. These are followed by a source code excerpt from the pre-release benchmark suite. As Peter pointed out, SECURE_SCL setting must be consistent throughout linkage units, or else the resulting ODR violations can lead to memory corruption etc. For this reason, I would like to see boost build add a link-incompatible feature, something like: on/off :-) whose default setting is off for release. Of course something like might be a more realistic name. Of course one can manually achieve a similar effect using the bjam command line above. But with such an approach it is too easy to mix and match, the defaults are backwards, and there seems to be relatively little support for projects built with boost build that bring in boost libraries via properties. Alternatively, it might be worth considering whether we could control the feature via configuration header files. - Mat ### release build with _SECURE_SCL enabled ### c:\boxer\performance\projects\msvc8\Release\stepanov_vector.exe test description absolute operations ratio with number time per second test0 0 "double pointer verify2" 3.03 sec 989.77 M 1.00 1 "DoubleClass pointer verify2" 3.05 sec 984.57 M 1.01 2 "double vector" 16.14 sec 185.86 M 5.33 3 "DoubleClass vector" 18.19 sec 164.95 M 6.00 4 "double vector reverse" 26.23 sec 114.35 M 8.66 5 "DoubleClass vector reverse" 26.20 sec 114.49 M 8.65 6 "double vector reverse reverse" 31.25 sec 96.00 M 10.31 7 "DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 31.25 sec 96.00 M 10.31 Total absolute time for Vector accumulate: 155.34 sec Vector accumulate Penalty: 5.92 test description absolute operations ratio with number time per second test0 0 "insertion_sort double pointer verify2" 1.16 sec 2.60 M 1.00 1 "insertion_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 1.58 sec 1.90 M 1.37 2 "insertion_sort double vector" 19.58 sec 0.15 M 16.94 3 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector" 18.00 sec 0.17 M 15.57 4 "insertion_sort double vector reverse" 30.56 sec 0.10 M 26.44 5 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse" 29.06 sec 0.10 M 25.14 6 "insertion_sort double vector reverse reverse" 43.03 sec 0.07 M 37.22 7 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 43.05 sec 0.07 M 37.24 Total absolute time for Vector Insertion Sort: 186.02 sec Vector Insertion Sort Penalty: 16.49 test description absolute operations rati o with number time per second test 0 0 "quicksort double pointer verify2" 1.64 sec 14.63 M 1.00 1 "quicksort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 1.95 sec 12.29 M 1.19 2 "quicksort double vector" 5.03 sec 4.77 M 3.07 3 "quicksort DoubleClass vector" 5.22 sec 4.60 M 3.18 4 "quicksort double vector reverse" 7.16 sec 3.35 M 4.36 5 "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse" 7.34 sec 3.27 M 4.48 6 "quicksort double vector reverse reverse" 8.84 sec 2.71 M 5.39 7 "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 9.06 sec 2.65 M 5.52 Total absolute time for Vector Quicksort: 46.25 sec Vector Quicksort Penalty: 3.52 test description absolute operations rati o with number time per second test 0 0 "heap_sort double pointer verify2" 1.81 sec 13.24 M 1.00 1 "heap_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 1.88 sec 12.80 M 1.03 2 "heap_sort double vector" 7.84 sec 3.06 M 4.33 3 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector" 7.89 sec 3.04 M 4.35 4 "heap_sort double vector reverse" 10.80 sec 2.22 M 5.96 5 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse" 10.31 sec 2.33 M 5.69 6 "heap_sort double vector reverse reverse" 13.23 sec 1.81 M 7.30 7 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 13.22 sec 1.82 M 7.29 Total absolute time for Vector Heap Sort: 66.98 sec Vector Heap Sort Penalty: 4.46 ### release build with _SECURE_SCL disabled ### c:\boxer\performance\projects\msvc8\Release\stepanov_vector.exe test description absolute operations ratio with number time per second test0 0 "double pointer verify2" 3.03 sec 989.45 M 1.00 1 "DoubleClass pointer verify2" 3.05 sec 984.57 M 1.00 2 "double vector" 3.06 sec 979.75 M 1.01 3 "DoubleClass vector" 3.05 sec 984.57 M 1.00 4 "double vector reverse" 3.06 sec 979.75 M 1.01 5 "DoubleClass vector reverse" 3.05 sec 984.57 M 1.00 6 "double vector reverse reverse" 3.09 sec 969.62 M 1.02 7 "DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 3.06 sec 979.43 M 1.01 Total absolute time for Vector accumulate: 24.45 sec Vector accumulate Penalty: 1.01 test description absolute operations ratio with number time per second test0 0 "insertion_sort double pointer verify2" 1.16 sec 2.60 M 1.00 1 "insertion_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 1.58 sec 1.90 M 1.37 2 "insertion_sort double vector" 1.58 sec 1.90 M 1.37 3 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector" 2.08 sec 1.44 M 1.80 4 "insertion_sort double vector reverse" 1.55 sec 1.94 M 1.34 5 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse" 2.03 sec 1.48 M 1.76 6 "insertion_sort double vector reverse reverse" 1.59 sec 1.88 M 1.38 7 "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 2.09 sec 1.43 M 1.81 Total absolute time for Vector Insertion Sort: 13.66 sec Vector Insertion Sort Penalty: 1.53 test description absolute operations rati o with number time per second test 0 0 "quicksort double pointer verify2" 1.75 sec 13.71 M 1.00 1 "quicksort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 2.06 sec 11.64 M 1.18 2 "quicksort double vector" 1.80 sec 13.36 M 1.03 3 "quicksort DoubleClass vector" 2.14 sec 11.21 M 1.22 4 "quicksort double vector reverse" 1.78 sec 13.48 M 1.02 5 "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse" 2.13 sec 11.29 M 1.21 6 "quicksort double vector reverse reverse" 1.78 sec 13.48 M 1.02 7 "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 2.16 sec 11.13 M 1.23 Total absolute time for Vector Quicksort: 15.59 sec Vector Quicksort Penalty: 1.13 test description absolute operations rati o with number time per second test 0 0 "heap_sort double pointer verify2" 1.80 sec 13.36 M 1.00 1 "heap_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2" 1.83 sec 13.12 M 1.02 2 "heap_sort double vector" 1.88 sec 12.80 M 1.04 3 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector" 2.05 sec 11.73 M 1.14 4 "heap_sort double vector reverse" 2.14 sec 11.21 M 1.19 5 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse" 2.28 sec 10.52 M 1.27 6 "heap_sort double vector reverse reverse" 1.88 sec 12.80 M 1.04 7 "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse" 2.03 sec 11.81 M 1.13 Total absolute time for Vector Heap Sort: 15.88 sec Vector Heap Sort Penalty: 1.12 ### pre-release benchmark source code excerpt ### /* Copyright 2007-2008 Adobe Systems Incorporated Distributed under the MIT License (see accompanying file LICENSE_1_0_0.txt or a copy at http://stlab.adobe.com/licenses.html) Goal: examine any change in performance when moving from pointers to vector iterators Assumptions: 1) Vector iterators should not perform worse than raw pointers. 2) Using a vector should not perform worse than using a plain array of values. HIstory: This is similar to Alex Stepanov's original abstraction penalty benchmark. But the use of the STL container adds complexity and dependencies that don't fit with the design of the original benchmark, so this is broken out into a separate test. Now we are testing the STL vector implementation in addition to the compiler. #include #include #include #include #include #include #include "benchmark_results.h" #include "benchmark_timer.h" #include "benchmark_algorithms.h" #include /******************************************************************************/ // a single double value wrapped in a struct struct DoubleClass { double value; DoubleClass() {} DoubleClass(const double& x) : value(x) {} operator double() { return value; } }; inline DoubleClass operator+(const DoubleClass& x, const DoubleClass& y) { return DoubleClass(x.value + y.value); } inline bool operator<(const DoubleClass& x, const DoubleClass& y) { return (x.value < y.value); } /******************************************************************************/ // reverse iterator template template struct reverse_iterator { RandomAccessIterator current; reverse_iterator(RandomAccessIterator x) : current(x) {} T& operator*() const { RandomAccessIterator tmp = current; return *(--tmp); } }; // really a distance between pointers, which must return ptrdiff_t // because (ptr - ptr) --> ptrdiff_t template inline ptrdiff_t operator-(reverse_iterator& xx, reverse_iterator& yy) { return (ptrdiff_t)( yy.current - xx.current ); } template inline reverse_iterator& operator++(reverse_iterator &xx) { --xx.current; return xx; } template inline reverse_iterator& operator--(reverse_iterator &xx) { ++xx.current; return xx; } template inline reverse_iterator operator++(reverse_iterator &xx, int) { reverse_iterator tmp = xx; ++xx; return tmp; } template inline reverse_iterator operator--(reverse_iterator &xx, int) { reverse_iterator tmp = xx; --xx; return tmp; } template inline reverse_iterator operator-(reverse_iterator &xx, ptrdiff_t inc) { reverse_iterator tmp = xx; tmp.current += inc; return tmp; } template inline reverse_iterator operator+(reverse_iterator &xx, ptrdiff_t inc) { reverse_iterator tmp = xx; tmp.current -= inc; return tmp; } template inline reverse_iterator& operator+=(reverse_iterator &xx, ptrdiff_t inc) { xx.current -= inc; return xx; } template inline reverse_iterator& operator-=(reverse_iterator &xx, ptrdiff_t inc) { xx.current += inc; return xx; } template inline bool operator<(const reverse_iterator& x, const reverse_iterator& y) { return (y.current < x.current); } template inline bool operator==(const reverse_iterator& x, const reverse_iterator& y) { return (x.current == y.current); } template inline bool operator!=(const reverse_iterator& x, const reverse_iterator& y) { return (x.current != y.current); } /******************************************************************************/ /******************************************************************************/ // this constant may need to be adjusted to give reasonable minimum times // For best results, times should be about 1.0 seconds for the minimum test run int iterations = 1500000; // 2000 items, or about 16k of data // this is intended to remain within the L2 cache of most common CPUs #define SIZE 2000 // initial value for filling our arrays, may be changed from the command line double init_value = 3.0; /******************************************************************************/ /******************************************************************************/ inline void check_sum(double result) { if (result != SIZE * init_value) printf("test %i failed\n", current_test); } /******************************************************************************/ template void verify_sorted(Iterator first, Iterator last) { if (!is_sorted(first,last)) printf("sort test %i failed\n", current_test); } /******************************************************************************/ // a template using the accumulate template and iterators template void test(Iterator first, Iterator last, T zero, const char *label) { int i; start_timer(); for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) check_sum( double( accumulate(first, last, zero) ) ); record_result( timer(), label ); } /******************************************************************************/ template void test_insertion_sort(Iterator firstSource, Iterator lastSource, Iterator firstDest, Iterator lastDest, T zero, const char *label) { int i; start_timer(); for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) { ::copy(firstSource, lastSource, firstDest); insertionSort< Iterator, T>( firstDest, lastDest ); verify_sorted( firstDest, lastDest ); } record_result( timer(), label ); } /******************************************************************************/ template void test_quicksort(Iterator firstSource, Iterator lastSource, Iterator firstDest, Iterator lastDest, T zero, const char *label) { int i; start_timer(); for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) { ::copy(firstSource, lastSource, firstDest); quicksort< Iterator, T>( firstDest, lastDest ); verify_sorted( firstDest, lastDest ); } record_result( timer(), label ); } /******************************************************************************/ template void test_heap_sort(Iterator firstSource, Iterator lastSource, Iterator firstDest, Iterator lastDest, T zero, const char *label) { int i; start_timer(); for(i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) { ::copy(firstSource, lastSource, firstDest); heapsort< Iterator, T>( firstDest, lastDest ); verify_sorted( firstDest, lastDest ); } record_result( timer(), label ); } /******************************************************************************/ /******************************************************************************/ // our global arrays of numbers to be summed double data[SIZE]; DoubleClass Data[SIZE]; double dataMaster[SIZE]; DoubleClass DataMaster[SIZE]; /******************************************************************************/ // declaration of our iterator types and begin/end pairs typedef double* dp; dp dpb = data; dp dpe = data + SIZE; dp dMpb = dataMaster; dp dMpe = dataMaster + SIZE; typedef DoubleClass* Dp; Dp Dpb = Data; Dp Dpe = Data + SIZE; Dp DMpb = DataMaster; Dp DMpe = DataMaster + SIZE; typedef std::vector::iterator vdp; typedef std::vector::iterator vDp; typedef std::vector::reverse_iterator rvdp; typedef std::vector::reverse_iterator rvDp; typedef reverse_iterator rrvdp; typedef reverse_iterator rrvDp; /******************************************************************************/ /******************************************************************************/ int main(int argc, char** argv) { double dZero = 0.0; DoubleClass DZero = 0.0; // output command for documentation: int i; for (i = 0; i < argc; ++i) printf("%s ", argv[i] ); printf("\n"); if (argc > 1) iterations = atoi(argv[1]); if (argc > 2) init_value = (double) atof(argv[2]); // seed the random number generator so we get repeatable results srand( (int)init_value + 123 ); ::fill(dpb, dpe, double(init_value)); ::fill(Dpb, Dpe, DoubleClass(init_value)); std::vector vec_data; std::vector vec_Data; vec_data.resize(SIZE); vec_Data.resize(SIZE); rrvdp rvdpb(vec_data.rend()); rrvdp rvdpe(vec_data.rbegin()); rrvDp rvDpb(vec_Data.rend()); rrvDp rvDpe(vec_Data.rbegin()); ::fill(vec_data.begin(), vec_data.end(), double(init_value)); ::fill(vec_Data.begin(), vec_Data.end(), DoubleClass(init_value)); test(dpb, dpe, dZero, "double pointer verify2"); test(Dpb, Dpe, DZero, "DoubleClass pointer verify2"); test(vec_data.begin(), vec_data.end(), dZero, "double vector"); test(vec_Data.begin(), vec_Data.end(), DZero, "DoubleClass vector"); test(vec_data.rbegin(), vec_data.rend(), dZero, "double vector reverse"); test(vec_Data.rbegin(), vec_Data.rend(), DZero, "DoubleClass vector reverse"); test(rvdpb, rvdpe, dZero, "double vector reverse reverse"); test(rvDpb, rvDpe, DZero, "DoubleClass vector reverse reverse"); summarize("Vector accumulate", SIZE, iterations, kShowGMeans, kShowPenalty ); // the sorting tests are much slower than the accumulation tests - O(N^2) iterations = iterations / 1000; std::vector vec_dataMaster; std::vector vec_DataMaster; vec_dataMaster.resize(SIZE); vec_DataMaster.resize(SIZE); // fill one set of random numbers fill_random( dMpb, dMpe ); // copy to the other sets, so we have the same numbers ::copy( dMpb, dMpe, DMpb ); ::copy( dMpb, dMpe, vec_dataMaster.begin() ); ::copy( dMpb, dMpe, vec_DataMaster.begin() ); rrvdp rvdMpb(vec_dataMaster.rend()); rrvdp rvdMpe(vec_dataMaster.rbegin()); rrvDp rvDMpb(vec_DataMaster.rend()); rrvDp rvDMpe(vec_DataMaster.rbegin()); test_insertion_sort(dMpb, dMpe, dpb, dpe, dZero, "insertion_sort double pointer verify2"); test_insertion_sort(DMpb, DMpe, Dpb, Dpe, DZero, "insertion_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2"); test_insertion_sort(vec_dataMaster.begin(), vec_dataMaster.end(), vec_data.begin(), vec_data.end(), dZero, "insertion_sort double vector"); test_insertion_sort(vec_DataMaster.begin(), vec_DataMaster.end(), vec_Data.begin(), vec_Data.end(), DZero, "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector"); test_insertion_sort(vec_dataMaster.rbegin(), vec_dataMaster.rend(), vec_data.rbegin(), vec_data.rend(), dZero, "insertion_sort double vector reverse"); test_insertion_sort(vec_DataMaster.rbegin(), vec_DataMaster.rend(), vec_Data.rbegin(), vec_Data.rend(), DZero, "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse"); test_insertion_sort(rvdMpb, rvdMpe, rvdpb, rvdpe, dZero, "insertion_sort double vector reverse reverse"); test_insertion_sort(rvDMpb, rvDMpe, rvDpb, rvDpe, DZero, "insertion_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse"); summarize("Vector Insertion Sort", SIZE, iterations, kShowGMeans, kShowPenalty ); // these are slightly faster - O(NLog2(N)) iterations = iterations * 8; // iterations / 25 test_quicksort(dMpb, dMpe, dpb, dpe, dZero, "quicksort double pointer verify2"); test_quicksort(DMpb, DMpe, Dpb, Dpe, DZero, "quicksort DoubleClass pointer verify2"); test_quicksort(vec_dataMaster.begin(), vec_dataMaster.end(), vec_data.begin(), vec_data.end(), dZero, "quicksort double vector"); test_quicksort(vec_DataMaster.begin(), vec_DataMaster.end(), vec_Data.begin(), vec_Data.end(), DZero, "quicksort DoubleClass vector"); test_quicksort(vec_dataMaster.rbegin(), vec_dataMaster.rend(), vec_data.rbegin(), vec_data.rend(), dZero, "quicksort double vector reverse"); test_quicksort(vec_DataMaster.rbegin(), vec_DataMaster.rend(), vec_Data.rbegin(), vec_Data.rend(), DZero, "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse"); test_quicksort(rvdMpb, rvdMpe, rvdpb, rvdpe, dZero, "quicksort double vector reverse reverse"); test_quicksort(rvDMpb, rvDMpe, rvDpb, rvDpe, DZero, "quicksort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse"); summarize("Vector Quicksort", SIZE, iterations, kShowGMeans, kShowPenalty ); test_heap_sort(dMpb, dMpe, dpb, dpe, dZero, "heap_sort double pointer verify2"); test_heap_sort(DMpb, DMpe, Dpb, Dpe, DZero, "heap_sort DoubleClass pointer verify2"); test_heap_sort(vec_dataMaster.begin(), vec_dataMaster.end(), vec_data.begin(), vec_data.end(), dZero, "heap_sort double vector"); test_heap_sort(vec_DataMaster.begin(), vec_DataMaster.end(), vec_Data.begin(), vec_Data.end(), DZero, "heap_sort DoubleClass vector"); test_heap_sort(vec_dataMaster.rbegin(), vec_dataMaster.rend(), vec_data.rbegin(), vec_data.rend(), dZero, "heap_sort double vector reverse"); test_heap_sort(vec_DataMaster.rbegin(), vec_DataMaster.rend(), vec_Data.rbegin(), vec_Data.rend(), DZero, "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse"); test_heap_sort(rvdMpb, rvdMpe, rvdpb, rvdpe, dZero, "heap_sort double vector reverse reverse"); test_heap_sort(rvDMpb, rvDMpe, rvDpb, rvDpe, DZero, "heap_sort DoubleClass vector reverse reverse"); summarize("Vector Heap Sort", SIZE, iterations, kShowGMeans, kShowPenalty ); return 0; } // the end /******************************************************************************/ /******************************************************************************/

5 4

[1.35] [serialization] header dependency when using msvc-8.0
by Stefan Heinzmann 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

Hi all, this very simple program here didn't compile with msvc-8.0 and boost 1.35: // bugtest-boost-1.35-mpl.cpp #include <boost/serialization/map.hpp> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { return 0; } The compiler outputs those error lines: d:\src\libs\boost\include\boost-1_35\boost\serialization\utility.hpp(48) : error C2039: 'and_' : is not a member of 'boost::mpl' d:\src\libs\boost\include\boost-1_35\boost\serialization\utility.hpp(50) : see reference to class template instantiation 'boost::serialization::is_bitwise_serializable<std::pair<_Ty1,_Ty2>>' being compiled d:\src\libs\boost\include\boost-1_35\boost\serialization\utility.hpp(48) : error C2504: 'and_' : base class undefined d:\src\libs\boost\include\boost-1_35\boost\serialization\utility.hpp(48) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ',' before '<' Adding another include line before the existing one makes the compile succeed: #include <boost/mpl/and.hpp> Surely this must be a simple bug in the serialization library. Cheers Stefan

3 3

BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS, BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD tests in config_test not strict enough
by Peter Dimov 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

I'm looking at the results of some new tests I added to smart_ptr: spinlock_try_test, yield_k_test, and I'm seeing failures on platforms that (in single threaded mode, i.e. without <threading>multi) advertise BOOST_HAS_PTHREADS (and BOOST_HAS_SCHED_YIELD) but in reality do one of: 1. provide stub implementations of pthread_mutex_*, failing a pthread_mutex_trylock test; 2. provide stubs and segfault on pthread_mutex_trylock; 3. fail to link because of missing pthread_mutex_trylock; 4. fail to link because of missing sched_yield. This isn't particularly odd or surprising. But I think that config_test ought to fail on these platforms, for the same reason my tests fail. The reason the test passes is because boost_has_pthreads.ipp and boost_has_sched_yield.ipp are too permissive; the first one only tests pthread_mutex_* functions that are stubbed and appear to work, the second doesn't attempt to actually call sched_yield and - presumably - the linker discards the reference. Does this make any sense? :-)

2 22

[smart_ptr] enable_shared_from_this_light
by Daniel Frey 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

Hi, I attached a complete implementation of enable_shared_from_this_light which has an overhead of a single plain pointer. It is compatible with 1.35.0's enable_shared_from_this, except for one feature: The optimized version requires that the following static_cast is legal: enable_shared_from_this_light<T>* p; static_cast<T*>(p); which means that enable_shared_from_this_light<T> must be a *non-virtual* base class of T. If you need this feature, you might want to use trunk's enable_shared_from_this (without _light), which (currently) has an overhead of four plain pointers, one bool and it adds/requires the class to have a vtable. The trunk version therefore offers some advanced features. The above repeats a few things for those people that haven't followed the discussion in the "[smart_ptr] Some questions"-thread. For those that did: The thing to note is that I added two more things to shared_ptr: _internal_shared_count() and a ctor which takes a detail::weak_count and the raw pointer. Any feedback welcome. Regards, Daniel

4 15

[graph] Dangerous undocumented EdgeList parameter for adjacency_list.
by Jurko Gospodnetić 13 Apr '08

13 Apr '08

Hi. We have just finished a painful three day track-down for a mysterious access violation/crash/undefined behavior bug and the cause has been tracked down to some graph library edge descriptors getting invalidated in a case that is completely undocumented (that in turn causing memory trashing and all the lovely things that follow...) When you have an adjacency_list graph with its EdgeList (not OutEdgeList) parameter set to vecS, then any add_edge() operation may invalidate all existing edge descriptors. This is not documented anywhere - not under the add_edge() operation and not under the 'Iterator and Descriptor Stability/Invalidation' section in adjacency_list.html which in fact explicitly states that add_edge() operation does not invalidate edge descriptors. Please, please, please document this whole EdgeList concept and how it interacts with the rest of the graph library. Also, this behavior is not consistent with add_vertex() which does not invalidate any existing vertex descriptors. Edge descriptors seem to contain a pointer directly into their graph's edge storage, and that causes them to be invalidated whenever that storage gets reallocated. Any reason why they should not be holding an index to that storage in case EdgeList=vecS similar to how vertex descriptors identify their vertex? That way this whole problem with add_edge() invalidating all existing edge descriptors would be avoided. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Jurko Gospodnetić

1 1