September 2012 - Boost - lists.boost.org

[lockfree] Inconsistent typedef tag_t in tagged_ptr
by Hartmut Kaiser 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hey all, The embedded typedef <...> tag_t has inconsistent visibility in the two implementations of tagged_ptr. In tagged_ptr.hpp this typedef is 'public', while in the file tagged_ptr_ptrcompression.hpp this typedef is 'private'. Would it be possible to make it public in both cases (patch attached)? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 2

[context] Windows ctx::maximum_stacksize() runtime asserts
by Hartmut Kaiser 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hey all, The Windows implementation of boost::ctx::maximum_stacksize() does always assert: std::size_t maximum_stacksize() { BOOST_ASSERT( ! is_stack_unbound() ); static std::size_t stacksize = 8 * 1024 * 1024; return stacksize; } That is because is_stack_unbound() will unconditionally return true. Patch is attached - ok to commit? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 2

MPI maintainer?
by Ralf Grosse-Kunstleve 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Who is currently maintaining Boost MPI? We have two trac items I'd like to assign to the MPI maintainer. The first one has been sitting there for a long time already. https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6123 https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7316 Ralf

1 0

[test] Boost.Test unreleased since November 2009 ?
by Mathieu Champlon 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hi, I've noticed that no merge has been made from trunk to the release branch for Boost.Test since November 2009, meaning that a lot of bug fixes and features have remained unreleased. Is it on purpose ? Thanks, MAT.

2 1

[test] Where should I put replacement functions for WinCE?
by Jan Hudec 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hello Folks, Windows CE don't have time and clock functions, getenv function and errno.h (though they seem to have _errno function). I needed to define these things to get Boost.Test to build for WinCE. Now it would be nice to have this work by default. I can provide the definitions (they are quite simple), but I am not sure where would be correct place for them. Should I add them to config/platform/win32.hpp, create config/platform/wince.hpp or put them just in test? Thanks, Jan -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb(a)ucw.cz>

2 1

[test] sigaltstack does not work on older Android
by Jan Hudec 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hello Folks, Android NDK contains several "platforms", depending on which release one desires to be compatible with. Boost test compiles fine with android-8 and newer, but the older versions have incomplete definition of sigaltstack (they define the structure, but not the function), causing compilation error in boost/test/detail/impl/execution_monitor.ipp. I have fixed it locally by adjusting the condition for defining BOOST_TEST_USE_ALT_STACK, but I am not sure which level of fix would be best suited for integrating in boost. I see 3 options: 1. Leaving it as is and simply saying android is only supported from API level 8 (that's 2.2; we are still compiling for 2.1 (which has no changes in native since 2.0)) 2. Simply disabling BOOST_TEST_USE_ALT_STACK in Android; it's not necessary after all. 3. Being really precise and reading the API version, but that requires including extra header. It would be nice, but I am not sure what is the correct place to include it. Here is a simple patch that just disables sigaltstack for Android: --- a/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp +++ b/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ namespace { void _set_se_translator( void* ) {} } # endif # endif -# if !defined(__CYGWIN__) && !defined(__QNXNTO__) +# if !defined(__CYGWIN__) && !defined(__QNXNTO__) && !defined(__ANDROID__) # define BOOST_TEST_USE_ALT_STACK # endif And here is a more complex patch that on android (the __ANDROID__ macro is predefined by the compiler in Android NDK) reads the api-level and uses it to decide: --- a/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp +++ b/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp @@ -173,7 +173,11 @@ namespace { void _set_se_translator( void* ) {} } # endif # endif -# if !defined(__CYGWIN__) && !defined(__QNXNTO__) +# if defined(__ANDROID__) +# include <android/api-level.h> +# endif + +# if !defined(__CYGWIN__) && !defined(__QNXNTO__) && (!defined(__ANDROID__) || __ANDROID_API__ >= 8) # define BOOST_TEST_USE_ALT_STACK # endif -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb(a)ucw.cz>

2 1

[test] Fix WinCE workaround
by Jan Hudec 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hello Folks, boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp has workaround for older MSVC++ and assumes WinCE version need it too. However the WinCE compiler caught up in next version. Here is a proposed patch: --- a/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp +++ b/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ using std::va_list; typedef unsigned uintptr_t; # endif -# if BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1300 ) || defined(UNDER_CE) +# if BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1300 ) || (defined(UNDER_CE) && BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1500 )) typedef void* uintptr_t; # endif -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb(a)ucw.cz>

2 1

[test] Interest in gtest-like output?
by Jared Grubb 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

I really like the Boost.Test framework, however, I cant help but have a bit of envy over how great the output from googletest looks. I've been playing around with writing a formatter/outputter that emulates the output style of googletest, and I am willing to spend some time to pretty it up and generate a patch if there's interest. Does anyone think this would be a worthy submission to boost? For an example of what the output looks like, this site has some great examples: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-googletestingframework.html (just to clarify: I'm not suggesting changing any BOOST_TEST syntax, just adding a new optional way to format the test progress and results to stdout) Jared

3 2

Re: [boost] [lockfree] Faulty (?) static assert
by Hartmut Kaiser 01 Sep '12

01 Sep '12

> The lockfree::queue constructors raise a static assert if no capacity is > specified. This contradicts the member initialization code close to the > assert, for instance: > > queue(void): > head_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > tail_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > pool(node_allocator(), has_capacity ? capacity : 0) > { > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity); > initialize(); > } > > which implies that 'has_capacity' is allowed to be false. From what I can > see 'has_capacity' could be false, indeed, in particular if the queue is > not bounded in size. > > Would changing this to > > queue(void): > head_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > tail_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > pool(node_allocator(), has_capacity ? capacity : 0) > { > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity || capacity); > initialize(); > } > > reflect the actual intention? Sorry, I meant: > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity || !capacity); Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > > Regards Hartmut > --------------- > http://boost-spirit.com > http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > >

1 0

[atomic] Windows autolinking and longlong patches
by Hartmut Kaiser 01 Sep '12

01 Sep '12

Hey, Please find attached two patches for Boost.Atomic (trunk, rev. 80334) adding auto-linking for MSVC, fixing symbol visibility, and fixing a long long problem. Ok to commit? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 2