December 2011 - Boost - lists.boost.org

vsix - template_profiler extension
by Brandon Kohn 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

Hello, I've put together a Visual Studio 2010 extension package which wraps the functionality of Steven Watanabe and Domagoj Saric's template_profiler to create a template profile tool. It also adds a command to profile the build time of a project or a single C++ file. Both functions are accessed from the context menu in the solution explorer tree-view. It's still fairly young and could use some kicking about. Are there any VC10 users here that would be interested in giving it a try? Cheers, Brandon

5 16

[move] new rvalue reference emulation
by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

I've recently discovered (well, probably rediscovered) an alternate rvalue reference emulation, one which allows rvalues ***of any arbitrary (move-emulation-enabled) type*** to be captured in C++03 and identified as rvalues, rather than references-to-const (there is a drawback, though, which I'll get to below; as usual, there's no "free lunch"). This is in contrast to the current move emulation framework Ion has created in Boost.Move which, at best, allows you to capture rvalues of specific types. That is, if you can enumerate the types for which you want to enable rvalue capture, then you're good. For example, if you want to create a generic unary function some_fn, and you know you want to at least capture rvalues of type X, you could do: template< class T > void some_fn(T&); // captures (lvalue) references-to-non-const, explicitly created emulated rvalue references, *and* (lvalue) references-to-(X const) template< class T > typename boost::disable_if< boost::is_same<T,X> >::type void some_fn(T const &); // captures (lvalue) references-to-const *except* (lvalue) references-to-(X const) void some_fn(rv<X>&); // captures rvalues of X as emulated rvalue references However, if Y is any type other than X, the above overloads will capture an rvalue of Y as an (lvalue) reference-to-(Y const). This is one of the shortcomings of using the emulated rvalue reference rv<T>& as a function argument: it can't bind to rvalues in a context where the template parameter T is deduced. Now I don't know if the following proposition is a good idea or not, but I think it is worth considering. Again, we would like the emulated rvalue reference rv<T>& to bind to rvalues, but the problem is the deduction of the T template parameter. Instead of using rv<T>& to capture arbitrary rvalues, I'll use a kind of type-erased emulated rvalue reference, generic_rv<...> (for lack of a better name at the moment), which will just store a void pointer to the original, pre-type-erased object. Of course, we need some way to recover the object back from the void pointer, and that's what the "..." template parameters are for. This is where the (unfortunate) runtime overhead comes in, as some dispatching mechanism (e.g., function pointers) needs to be used to effect the recovery of the original, pre-type-erased object. The important difference between rv<T> and generic_rv<...> is that there's no T in the template parameter list "..." of generic_rv; more to the point, its template parameters are not deduced within the context of binding function arguments of some_fn, hence the compiler will be allowed to look for conversions from arbitrary rvalues to generic_rv<...>. Hopefully that gives enough of an introduction to the idea. Further details are probably best left to a code snippet. Comments? Specifically, should this be considered as an addition to Boost.Move's current emulation framework? Has anyone seen this technique before? ---------------- #include <iostream> #include <boost/type_traits/is_convertible.hpp> #include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp> // rv<T>& emulates T&& template< class T > class rv : public T { rv(); rv(rv const &); rv& operator=(rv const &); }; template< class T > struct has_move_emulation : boost::is_convertible< T, rv<T>& > { }; // *** NEW EMULATED RVALUE REFERENCE *** // generic_rv< F, Result > also emulates an rvalue reference, but in a kind of // type-erased way. The actual object referred to is referenced by a void // pointer. To be able to cast the void pointer back to a pointer-to-object, we // need to package the void pointer together with some kind of dispatching // mechanism. We use a function pointer to an instantiation of cast_forward<T>. template< class F, class Result = void > struct generic_rv { typedef Result (*p_cast_forward_type)(F, void*); generic_rv(p_cast_forward_type p_cast_forward, void* p) : mp_cast_forward(p_cast_forward), m_p(p) { } Result cast_forward(F f) const { return (*mp_cast_forward)(f, m_p); } template< class T > static Result cast_forward(F f, void* const p) { return f(static_cast< rv<T>& >(*static_cast< T* >(p))); } private: p_cast_forward_type mp_cast_forward; void* m_p; }; // X is just a typical move-emulation-enabled class. struct X { X() { std::cout << "X::X()" << std::endl; } X(X const &) { std::cout << "X::X(X const &)" << std::endl; } X(rv<X>&) { std::cout << "X::X(rv<X>&)" << std::endl; } X& operator=(X) { std::cout << "X::operator=(X)" << std::endl; return *this; } X& operator=(rv<X>&) { std::cout << "X::operator=(rv<X>&)" << std::endl; return *this; } operator rv<X>&() { std::cout << "X::operator rv<X>&()" << std::endl; return *static_cast< rv<X>* >(this); } operator rv<X> const &() const { std::cout << "X::operator rv<X> const &() const" << std::endl; return *static_cast< rv<X> const * >(this); } // *** NEW CONVERSION OPERATOR *** // X provides an implicit conversion to generic_rv. template< class F, class Result > operator generic_rv< F, Result >() { std::cout << "X::operator generic_rv< F, Result >()" << std::endl; return generic_rv< F, Result >( &generic_rv< F, Result >::template cast_forward<X>, static_cast< void* >(this) ); } }; struct some_fn { template< class T > void operator()(T&) const { std::cout << "some_fn::operator()(T&) const" << std::endl; } template< class T > typename boost::disable_if< has_move_emulation<T> >::type operator()(T const &) const { std::cout << "some_fn::operator()(T const &) const" << std::endl; } // Notice that this overload requires template parameter deduction, hence // the compiler cannot apply an implicit conversion to rv<T>& from rvalues // of move-emulation-enabled types. In other words, this overload can only // bind to *explicitly* created emulated rvalue references, not to "real" // rvalues :( template< class T > void operator()(rv<T>&) const { std::cout << "some_fn::operator()(rv<T>&) const" << std::endl; } // *** NEW FUNCTION OVERLOAD TO CAPTURE RVALUES *** // Since this overload requires no template parameter deduction, the // compiler *can* apply an implicit conversion to generic_rv<...> from // rvalues of move-emulation-enabled types. Yes, there will be some runtime // overhead from the function pointer dispatching, but that will often be // preferable to copying x! void operator()(generic_rv< some_fn > const x) const { std::cout << "some_fn::operator()(generic_rv< some_fn >) const" << std::endl; return x.cast_forward(*this); } }; template< class T > T make() { return T(); } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int a = 0; int const b = 0; some_fn()(a); // some_fn::operator()(T&) const some_fn()(b); // some_fn::operator()(T const &) const some_fn()(make< int >()); // some_fn::operator()(T const &) const X x; // X::X() X const y; // X::X() some_fn()(x); // some_fn::operator()(T&) const some_fn()(y); // some_fn::operator()(T&) const some_fn()(make<X>()); // X::X() // X::operator generic_rv< F, Result >() // some_fn::operator()(generic_rv< some_fn >) const // some_fn::operator()(rv<T>&) const return 0; } ---------------- - Jeff

10 33

How to make tests building faster?
by Mateusz Łoskot 10 Feb '12

10 Feb '12

Hi, I'm trying to figure out if there is anything I could do to improve compile/link-time for tests of Boost.Geometry library. Currently, the tests follow fairly canonical approach in Boost: 1) Each .cpp file defines a single test program and all local test routines are executed from test_main() // test_feature_x.cpp void test1() {} // make use of BOOST_CHECK_* macros void test2() {} int test_main(int, char* []) { test1(); test2(); return 0; } 2) Jamfile per testing project builds and runs each program separately # features/Jamfile.v2 test-suite test-features : [ run test_feature_x.cpp ] [ run test_feature_y.cpp ] ; 3) Root mylib/test/Jamfile.v2 defines testing projects to build and run import testing ; project boost-mylib-test : ; build-project features ; build-project algorithms ; build-project abc ; In total, there are nearly 170 test programs in Boost.Geometry. Obviously, running the whole set of tests (b2 command issued in libs\geometry\test) is time consuming process. I'm wondering if there is any way to reorganise the tests to cut down the build (linking) time. My first idea is to decrease number of run entries (e.g. [ run test_feature_y.cpp ] ) in Jamfiles, by building related tests as single test suite program. Conceptually: [ run test_feature_x.cpp test_feature_y.cpp ] Currently, there is no use of Boost.Test features for tests organisation like BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE BOOST_TEST_SUITE etc. I wonder if use of any of the above would help in restructuring tests and decreasing number of programs to build. Another aspect of Boost.Geometry tests I'd like to improve is to improve tests report output. Currently, it is reported as *Passed* or *Failed*. I presume that using Boost.Test to group tests in suits with test cases would improve test report providing details about location of failure (which suite, which case, or even better). I'm looking for any piece of advice on the issues discussed above: - How to cut down build time of tests? - How to improve test output report (and keep it suitable for Boost regression testing framework)? - Is it advised to switch to use Boost.Test features to manage suites and test cases? (I tried to figure it out browsing tests of other libs, but it doesn't indicate any preferred practice). I'd be thankful for any insights. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

10 34

Re: [boost] [lexical_cast] Fast conversion from boost::iterator_range<std::string::iterator>?
by Matthew Chambers 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

On Oct 13, 2011 Michel Morin wrote: > lexical_cast made optimizations for some types (such as `std::string`) > to achieve better performance. But, from my experience, > it seems that lexical_cast does not make any optimization for > `boost::iterator_range<std::string::iterator>`. > > Is there any plan to add optimization for such iterator ranges? > Currently, > - `lexical_cast<int>(std::string(iter_rng.begin(), iter_rng.end()))` > is faster > than `lexical_cast<int>(iter_rng)`. > - Assuming it is safe to use `std::atoi`, > `std::atoi(&iter_rng.front())` is faster > than both of the above two methods. > (`iter_rng` is an instance of `boost::iterator_range<std::string::iterator>`.) > > Regards, > Michel This post was on the boost users list but never got a reply. I figure it might be a better fit on the developer list. I too would like to see optimized conversions work on string ranges; what's the point in doing a fast conversion if you have to do a string copy first? :) -Matt

8 16

[quickbook] changing paths
by lcaminiti 21 Jan '12

21 Jan '12

Hello all, How can I change the paths were Boost.QuickBook looks for the following files? 1) CSS and icon images by default from BOOST_ROOT/doc. 2) Navigation bar by default from BOOST_ROOT/tools/boostbook/xls. Essentially, I'd like to put the CSS, icon images, and navbar into a different path. Also, I'd like to change the navbar to one of my own. Thanks a lot. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-quickbook-changing-paths-tp3925967… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

4 4

[preprocessor] Warning: Incoming
by Paul Mensonides 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

I'm about to commit a relatively significant changeset to the pp-lib. This is the result of work by Edward Diener and I to add limited variadic support to the pp-lib. Edward can comment in more detail regarding the extent of those changes, but they do not add ground-up support. However, there are significant changes to heavily used low-level facilities such as BOOST_PP_TUPLE_ELEM (sometimes even complete implementation replacements). We have put in a great deal of effort to avoid introducing new errors or warnings in either the building of the Boost binaries or in the regression tests. However, we may have missed some issues. Regards, Paul Mensonides

11 42

[preprocessor] [variadic] BOOST_PP_VARIADICS vs BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS
by lcaminiti 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hello all, Why does Boost.Preprocessor redefines BOOST_PP_VARIAIDCS instead of just using BOOST_NO_VARIADIC_MACROS from Boost.Config? Furthermore, GCC supports variadics also when C++11 extensions are not enabled so I think the following should not && __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__: // File: boost/preprocessor/config/config.hpp # /* Wave (C/C++), GCC (C++) */ # elif defined __WAVE__ && __WAVE_HAS_VARIADICS__ || defined __GNUC__ && __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ # define BOOST_PP_VARIADICS 1 Thanks. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-preprocessor-variadic-BOOST-PP-VAR… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

4 6

Re: [boost] boost threads: pthread mutex priority inheritance + patches
by Jason Newton 16 Jan '12

16 Jan '12

Ack, no discussion on this since I posted it back in July. In my opensuse packages, I apply the following patch to insure priority inheritence on mutexs. I had to go inside the mutex ctor to do the work. -Jason On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Jason Newton <nevion(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jason Newton <nevion(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> For the moment, the few lines that compose the mutex class are easily >> copied so that I can do my own business inside the constructor but I expect >> others will run into this problem down the line and this solution is a bit >> unsavory. Any better advice? >> > > Actually a private copy of mutex didn't work so well overall as pthread > conditions are hard coded to > void boost::condition_variable::wait(boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>&) > > -Jason >

2 1

Fwd: How to build the documentation
by Pedro Larroy 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists(a)gmail.com> Date: Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM Subject: How to build the documentation To: boost-docs(a)lists.boost.org Hi I created a small patch for libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/tutorial.qbk How can I check that it builds correctly and generates propper html? Regards. Pedro.

5 8

[thread] Boost.Thread defines boost::move which conflicts with Boost.Move
by Hartmut Kaiser 05 Jan '12

05 Jan '12

VC10, SVN trunk: #include <boost/move/move.hpp> #include <boost/thread.hpp> int main() { return 0; } Results in: .../boost/thread/detail/move.hpp(28) : error C2995: 'remove_reference<T>::type &&boost::move(T &&)' : function template has already been defined .../boost/move/move.hpp(466) : see declaration of 'boost::move' IMHO, Boost.Thread needs to be changed to rely on Boost.Move for move semantics instead of defining its own implementation for boost::move(). Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

4 13