November 2009 - Boost - lists.boost.org

Making toolchains easier to use
by Beman Dawes 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

I just tried to rebuild the Getting Started Guild on Windows 7, something I had done many times on XP. >cd \boost\trunk\more\getting_started >bjam The build failed. Inspecting the output turned up the message: python: can't open file 'C:/Program Files/Python26/Lib/site-packages/docutils/tools/rst2ht ml.py': [Errno 2] No such file or directory Ah! Because of the Win 7 upgrade, Python was reinstalled, and docutils needs to be installed again, too. Did that, but same problem. Ah! I remember from past pain. The docutils install doesn't install "tools", you have to do that by hand. Did that. That worked. Only half an hour of my time wasted. If I had been a new user or developer, it would have been much longer. Here is what I think should have happened: When the build failed, a dialog box or console message should have popped up telling me that docutils/tools aren't installed, and asking me if I wanted docutils/tools to be installed. If I answered yes, the necessary download and install steps should have been performed automatically. Furthermore, I think the same thing should happen for any tool used by Boost, whether it be for documentation or other purposes. I guess I mean any tool run via bjam, at least at first. This sort of auto install when needed is happens routinely for non-boost apps on my Ubuntu system. It saves much time and aggravation. Thoughts? --Beman

1 0

proposal interval container; ITL moved to the boost sandbox
by Joachim Faulhaber 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Dear boosters, after completion of a lot of boostification work I moved my Interval Template Library to the boost sandbox in the boost project centric form: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox/itl itl boost itl [itl_xt] [validate] libs itl [itl_xt] [validate] I have split up the original library into three parts: (1) itl, (2) itl_xt and (3) validate. Core part 1 'ITL' contains all interval container class templates. Only this part will be prepared for a formal submission. Part 2 'itl_xt' contains extended parts of the original library that do not belong to the core interval container data structures and might be proposed for later extensions. Part 3 'validate' contains the sources for the law based test automaton 'LaBatea' that has been used for an automated check of the ITLs correctness. Parts 2 and 3 do not yet conform boost standards and naming conventions and are not yet intended as contributions to boost. On the core ITL-part I have done the following: + Removed all virtual functions via introduction of mixins + Integrated deeper into boost libraries replacing own code by e.g. boost::type_traits and boost::mpl + Minimized the class template interfaces by transforming member functions into non member function templates. + Made interval containers more interoperable by overloading operators and global function templates. + Wrote a test suite using boost unit test tools. Tested for boost-instance types boost::date_time and boost::rational + Provided jamfiles to build and run examples and tests. + All examples and tests have been compiled, linked and run successfully with msvc_9.0 and gcc_3.4.4(cygwin). Next I am going to write boost style html-documentation. >From the boost web page I don't see a clear recommendation for a preferable way of doing that. Handcoded? Generated with BoostBook? Is there a reference library that has an exemplary standard documentation? Cheers Joachim

3 4

Re: [boost] [msm] Version 2.0 available
by Christophe Henry 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Hi Eric, > Congrats! So is this a review request? Nudge, nudge. :) Yes. As soon as a review date is decided, there will be an announcement. Msm already has a review manager (Dave), we now have a powerful version, we just need a review date. >Do we really need another lambda? I hope that with a proto-based >Phoenix, we can retire all the mini-lambdas that have been >proliferating. (I'm guilty of this, too.) I expected that one :) Right now, yes I need. I need a tool to generate an mpl::vector of transitions (meaning with actions and guards), which I didn't manage to get to work with phoenix (maybe there is a way but I didn't see it). Of course, a proto-based phoenix would be of great help and if needed, I'd be happy to help on this. Regards, Christophe

2 1

GGL Review
by Tom Brinkman 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

GGL Review I'm very happy to see that that GGL is now ready for inclusion into boost. I have been following this library for the last couple of years. During that time, I have spent probably 5 hours looking over the code, reading the documentation and compiling the samples. I have a background in GIS applications. Count me as an enthusiastic supporter of this library and as a "yes" vote for inclusion into boost. I have no doubt that GGL will become one of the more popular libraries in boost. Thank you to Barend Gehrels, Bruno Lalande and Mateusz Loskot for submitting it to the public domain and to boost. The samples and tests are thorough and compile without errors or warnings on the latest version of the Intel compiler. The code follows all expected boost conventions. Tom Brinkman

2 1

Confused by regression testing "release" branch summary and unresolved issues
by Phil Richards 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

I expect the answer is blindingly obvious, but I've read http://www.boost.org/development/testing.html#Understanding and I don't understand. I'm looking at: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/summary.html and: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/release/developer/issues.html I would expect that issues.html would list all the non-expected failures shown in the summary.html page, but it doesn't. (Even tough that's what the "Purpose" seems to claim.) The are a raft of gcc 4.4 failures (not marked as expected - some of them should be, btw), but there are no gcc 4.4 failures at all shown on the issues.html page. What is the relationship between these two pages? Is it documented anywhere? Is it actually an issue that the release has quite a lot of unresolved issues for gcc 4.4? Phil -- Phil Richards, <news(a)derived-software.ltd.uk>

3 4

[gil] Committing some code changes
by Christian Henning 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

Hi there, I'm in the process to add some non-invasive code changes for boost::gil. Since this is my first time to commit changes to boost I would like to make sure I'm doing it right. The changes would be added to the trunk. Is that the right place? I have done the obvious steps on my local machine. And besides adding comments when checking in my changes what other steps do I have to do? Thanks, Christian

2 3

Jamfile to control MSVC compiler options /Za and /Ze
by Paul A. Bristow 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

I have been taking my own medicine and trying to get Boost.math free of warnings with the /Za No MS extensions option. Mostly this is fine. project : requirements <toolset>msvc:<cxxflags>/Za # disable MS Extensions in Boost.Test. ... But a few tests *require* the extensions. I have tried to enable them for just one module thus: # pow test requires type_of that MS extensions. run pow_test.cpp ../../test/build//boost_test_exec_monitor : # command line : # input files : # requirements <toolset>msvc:<cxxflags>/Ze # Requires type_of which requires MS extensions. : test_pow ; but the compiler complains about deprecation (and most importantly, that later options do not override, so you can't specify /Za and them /Ze. compile-c-c++ ..\..\..\bin.v2\libs\math\test\test_pow.test\msvc-9.0\debug\asynch-exceptions-on \threading-multi\pow_test.obj cl : Command line warning D9035 : option 'Ze' has been deprecated and will be removed in a future release cl : Command line error D8016 : '/Za' and '/Ze' command-line options are incompatible Can any jam experts suggest a way round this (short of leaving the default enable extensions, and making an exception for all the vast majority of modules that are OK with /Za - too tedious to be attractive? Splitting into two classes of tests is also ugly.) Thanks. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow(a)hetp.u-net.com

2 1

[smart_ptr] make_shared_array/allocate_shared_array function templates
by Roman Kecher 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Hi, I'm suggesting to add the following function templates to allow easy, exception-safe, creation of shared_array objects: - make_shared_array (very similar to make_shared which is used to create a shared_ptr) - allocate_shared_array (again, same functionality like allocate_shared) Is there any reason not to include these? Regards, Roman.

3 4

Time for another bug sprint (after 1.41 ships)?
by Marshall Clow 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Earlier this year, we had a "bug sprint", where many people focused on fixing bugs in Boost. We managed to get the # of open tickets down from 800 to about 720. As of today, there are 820 open tickets in Trac. Is it time to focus on swotting bugs again? 1.41 is scheduled for release on 1-November; that's six weeks from yesterday. How about a bug sprint starting on 14-November, finishing on 22- November? That's two weekends - and finishes up before the American Thanksgiving holiday. -- Marshall P.S. This doesn't mean that people have to wait until November to fix bugs ;-) ;-)

12 25

[function] "paranoia" vs efficiency
by Domagoj Saric 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

As far as I can see boost::function<>::operator() performs: if (this->empty()) boost::throw_exception(bad_function_call()); before invoking the stored function (object)... My question is why or why only this "checked"/"safe" approach/method of invocation exists? Because this: - causes (extra) code branching - causes the compiler to insert exception throwing and handling code in surrounding/calling code (which need not otherwise be if the function stored in the boost function instance is itself nothrow) - inserts a call to the bad_function_call constructor - disables the compiler from inlining the function (MSVC atleast) - disables NVRO (MSVC atleast, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms364057(VS.80).aspx#nrvo_cpp05_top… ) while at the same time I would most often consider calling a "null-function-pointer" a programmer error (that would therefor need to be "handled" with an assert not an exception), not a runtime 'unpredictable' exception... ...IMO the default should be not to include this check (i.e. use an assert) and provide a safeInvoke() type of method for those users and cases that actually require/want this type of check/behaviour... ...or atleast "it would be welcomed" if a non-checking unsafeInvoke() type of method would be provided for those that are 'sure' that the boost::function<> object is valid (for example in the line before i've just performed the same check to decide whether to call the function object or not)... -- "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history." Aldous Huxley

8 18