October 2011 - Boost - lists.boost.org

Determining interest in Delegates submission
by Jared McKee 05 Nov '11

05 Nov '11

I would like to determine interest in a possible library submission. I have written some code which converts a member function and object pointer combination to a free function for use in C style callbacks. It has some limitations which I will describe shortly. The basic idea is to be able to convert: R (B::*)(T0,T1,…) and B* to R (*)(T0,T1,…) Here's an example usage: class foo { int x; int test(int v) {return x + v;} }; foo* a = new foo; a->x = 3; int (*f)(int) = delegate(a, &foo::inc); cout << f(4) << endl; // outputs "7" When I first attempted this I used a technique where I allocated some executable memory in the heap and dynamically created a free function to call the member function for the instance. It was fun attempting that but, as you can imagine, as soon as I used the optimizer flags on my compiler I would get segment faults :) My second approach was to use templates and the Boost Preprocessor library to create appropriate static arrays of pointers to free functions matching the required signatures and then hand those pointers out each time the delegate() function is called. The two downsides to this are: you can only call delegate() for a certain function signature a limited number of times, and it adds a lot of potentially unused code to your executable. Here's the code (I've stripped out error checking for the sake of illustration): #include <boost/preprocessor.hpp> #ifndef _delegate_h_ #define _delegate_h_ #define MAX_DELEGATES 256 #define DELEGATE_PARAMS 0 #include "delegate_template.hpp" #undef DELEGATE_PARAMS #define DELEGATE_PARAMS 1 #include "delegate_template.hpp" #undef DELEGATE_PARAMS // … #endif // delegate_template.hpp #define DELEGATE_STORE BOOST_PP_CAT(DELEGATE_STORE,**DELEGATE_PARAMS) template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > struct DELEGATE_STORE { typedef B* objectPointer; typedef R (B::*memberFunction)( BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(DELEGATE_**PARAMS, T) ); typedef R (*freeFunction)( BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(DELEGATE_**PARAMS, T) ); static int delegateCount; static int delegateMax; static objectPointer delegateObjectPointer[MAX_**DELEGATES]; static memberFunction delegateMemberFunction[MAX_**DELEGATES]; template <int i> static R func( BOOST_PP_ENUM_BINARY_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T, v) ) { return (delegateObjectPointer[i]->***delegateMemberFunction[i])( BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(DELEGATE_**PARAMS, v) ); } static const freeFunction delegateFreeFunction[MAX_**DELEGATES]; static freeFunction getDelegate(objectPointer o, memberFunction m) { int delegateIndex = delegateCount++; delegateObjectPointer[**delegateIndex] = o; delegateMemberFunction[**delegateIndex] = m; return delegateFreeFunction[**delegateIndex]; } }; template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > int DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::delegateCount = 0; template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > int DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::delegateMax = MAX_DELEGATES; template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > typename DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::memberFunction DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) > ::delegateMemberFunction[MAX_**DELEGATES] = {0}; > template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > typename DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::objectPointer DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) > ::delegateObjectPointer[MAX_**DELEGATES] = {0}; > #define FUNC_POINTER(z, n, params) &DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::template func< n >, template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > const typename DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::freeFunction DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) > ::delegateFreeFunction[MAX_**DELEGATES] = { > BOOST_PP_REPEAT(MAX_DELEGATES, FUNC_POINTER,) }; template <class B, class R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, class T) > R (*delegate( B* b, R (B::*f)( BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(DELEGATE_**PARAMS, T) ) ))( BOOST_PP_ENUM_PARAMS(DELEGATE_**PARAMS, T) ) { return DELEGATE_STORE<B,R BOOST_PP_ENUM_TRAILING_PARAMS(**DELEGATE_PARAMS, T) >::getDelegate(b, f); } // end Thankyou very much if you managed to read all the way to here! By the way, this is my first active participation in any open source project :) Jared

3 5

[interprocess] message_queue hangs when another process dies
by Sergei Politov 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Hi, I have found the following problem with message_queue on win32 (MSVC 2008 + Windows Vista). Suppose we have 2 processes, one sends messages to queue, another reads them. When reading process dies (for instance using End process) during message_queue.receive the another process hangs in send. As I found during investigation, it tries to lock interprocess mutex, but it is already locked by dead process. So this message queue instance becomes unusable. I attached the example. Steps to reproduce: 1) Start "mq.exe s" (i.e. with argument s) It outs: sender: $PID 2) Start mq.exe without arguments. It outs: receiver: $PID 0 1 2 3 4 This time sender outs: send done: 3) At this point the message queue is empty and receiver waits for messages. End it with Task Manager. 4) Enter some number in sender console and press Enter. 5) The sender hangs in message_queue.send Best Regards, Sergei

6 13

Boost.Algorithm design question
by Marshall Clow 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

So, what do people prefer (and why?): template<typename InputIterator, typename V> bool none_of_equal ( InputIterator first, InputIterator last, V const &val ) { for ( ; first != last; ++first ) if ( val == *first ) return false; return true; } or template<typename InputIterator, > bool none_of_equal ( InputIterator first, InputIterator last, iterator_traits<InputIterator>::value_type const &val ) { for ( ; first != last; ++first ) if ( val == *first ) return false; return true; } In the first case, I think there's (possible) conversion from V to iterator_traits<InputIterator>::value_type each time through the loop. In the second case, there is not. Of course, the (mythical?) smart compiler would do the conversion once and save the result for reuse. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki

17 79

[1.48.0 Beta 1][fusion] MacTypes.h conflict with nil
by Jeff Flinn 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

reposted from "[1.48.0] Beta 1 is now available from SourceForge" thread for better visibilty. Mac 10.6 Xcode 3.2.6 gcc 4.2: In compiling our application, upgrading from boost_1_44_0 I get conflicts with MacTypes.h define of nil when compiling cons_fwd.hpp from fusion. Any thoughts? Jeff

3 3

Interest in boost.deepcopy
by Allan Johns 02 Nov '11

02 Nov '11

Just gauging initial interest in a boost.deepcopy library, analogous to deepcopy in python. Each type would register deepcopy behaviour with the library (there are similarities to boost.serialize). Boost.deepcopy would supply out-of-the-box registration for pod types, pointer types, arrays, stl containers and common boost containers. Example: template<typename T> void deepcopy(deepcopycontext& ctxt, const T& obj) { ...; } Why not use boost::serialize and serialize into memory then out again I hear you say? That's a great approach, but only when every object requires the same deepcopy behaviour (also, it's not too optimal). The problem is, I need specific behaviour in some types. Specifically, I need copy-on-write behaviour for a Buffer class that I'm using. For example: void deepcopy(deepcopycontext& ctxt, const Buf& b) { if(!ctxt.contains(&b)) { Buf b2(b); // doesn't copy the buf data, just holds a shared ptr internally. Data is only cloned when b/b2 is written to ctxt.insert(&b, b2); } } I attempted to model this a while ago using boost.serialize, but it turned out pretty clunky, I started needing a few decorator classes for special cases, etc. Apologies for the oversimplified examples above, just wanting to get interest in the jist of it. Please let me know if this overlaps with existing boost functionality also (I'm not aware of anything atm). Feedback appreciated. Thx, Allan

9 18

[multi_array] Ticket#4874 "multi_array compile errors using Visual C++ 2010 in debug mode"
by Stephan T. Lavavej 02 Nov '11

02 Nov '11

Hi Boost devs, VC10 users are occasionally encountering https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4874 and reporting it to MS. For example, see http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/687655/compilati… where I've explained what's going on (I wrote this analysis back in Feb 2010 and I believe it's still correct): The problem is that multi_array iterators report themselves as input iterators, which can't be written to (e.g. as the destination of a copy()). Under IDL=0, copy() doesn't actually care how its destination iterator is marked with an iterator category tag, it just tries to write to the destination iterator, and that works. Under IDL > 0, copy() wants to know whether its source and destination iterators are both random-access, in which case it can perform a range check and unwrap the destination iterator for increased performance. It does this by overloading foo(input_iterator_tag, output_iterator_tag) and foo(random_access_iterator_tag, random_access_iterator_tag) and calling foo(category(source), category(destination)). If both source and destination are random-access, both overloads are viable (i.e. callable) and the second overload is preferred, so it's actually called. Otherwise, source is required to be at least an input iterator (maybe stronger) and destination is required to be at least an output iterator (maybe stronger) so the first overload must be viable and the second overload will be non-viable, so the first overload wins by default. However, if the destination is not marked as an output iterator or stronger, then the first overload is non-viable as well as the second, so overload resolution fails and boom. Thanks, Stephan T. Lavavej Visual C++ Libraries Developer

2 1

[atomic] comments
by Tim Blechmann 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

hi helge and others, ... has been rather quiet about the boost.atomic review, so i want to raise a view issues: shared memory support: the fallback implementation relies on the spinlock pool that also used by the smart pointers. however this pool is per-process, so the fallback implementation won't work in shared memory. can this be changed/fixed? atomic::is_lock_free(): is_lock_free is set to either `true' or `false'. however in some cases, there are alignment constraints (iirc, 64bit atomics on ia32/x86_64 require a 64bit alignment). afaict there are not precautions to take care of this, are there? compile-time vs run-time dispatching: some instructions are not available on every CPU of a specific architecture. e.g. cmpxchg8b or cmpxchg16b are not available on all ia32/x86_64 cpus. i would appreciate if these instructions would not be used before performing a CPUID check, whether these instructions are really available (at least in a legacy mode) cmpxchg16b: currently cmpxchg16b doesn't seem to be supported. this instruction is required for some lock-free data structures (e.g. there is a dequeue algorithm, that requires a pair of tagged pointers). maybe this can be a starting point to discuss boost.atomic ... cheers, tim

6 38

[config] clang.hpp is not up-to-date
by Michel Morin 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

boost/config/compiler/clang.hpp is not up-to-date. For example, BOOST_NO_AUTO_DECLARATIONS is *always* defined (even if clang supports this feature). Is it worth fixing this on the release branch? P.S. I can make a patch, but before doing that I'd like to confirm whether __has_feature(cxx_auto_type) means that multi-declarator auto is supported or not. The following page says nothing about multi-declarator auto. http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html Doug? Regards, Michel

3 4

Silly Boost.Locale default narrow string encoding in Windows
by Alf P. Steinbach 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

When I engage the compiler-in-my-mind to the example given at http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/boost_locale/html/ namely <code> #include <boost/locale.hpp> #include <boost/filesystem/path.hpp> #include <boost/filesystem/fstream.hpp> int main() { // Create and install global locale std::locale::global(boost::locale::generator().generate("")); // Make boost.filesystem use it boost::filesystem::path::imbue(std::locale()); // Now Works perfectly fine with UTF-8! boost::filesystem::ofstream hello("שלום.txt"); } </code> then it fails to work when the literal string is replaced with a `main` argument. A conversion is then necessary and must be added. It breaks the principle of least surprise. It breaks the principle of not paying for what you don't (want to) use. I understand, from discussions elsewhere, that the author(s) have chosen a narrow string encoding that requires inefficient & awkward conversions in all directions, for political/religious reasons. Maybe my understanding of that is faulty, that it's no longer politics & religion but outright war (and maybe that war is even over, with even Luke Skywalker dead or deadly wounded). However, I still ask: why FORCE INEFFICIENCY & AWKWARDNESS on Boost users -- why not just do it right, using the platforms' native encodings. Cheers, - Alf

9 43

[unordered] 1.48 beta1 fails to compile with MSVC 2010 SP 1, error C2027: use of undefined type 'boost::type'
by Johan Lindvall 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

After trying out beta 1, I am seeing some failures with unordered containers, see attached file. Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 16.00.40219.01 for x64 The code compiles without problems under 1.47.0. Unfortunately, I cannot yet publish the source code that triggers this problem. Any hints where to start investigating this? -- /Johan.

2 5