June 2013 - Boost - lists.boost.org

[Macro]Test Case grouping using Traits
by Hemanth Choudary M V (RBEI/ETA1) 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello, I have observed that in native unit test framework(c++), there is an option to group test cases using attributes which are reflected as traits in the Test Explorer window in MS VS2012. Following is a an example of the same: BEGIN_TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE(TestMethod3) TEST_OWNER(L"SuperMan") TEST_PRIORITY(2) TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE(L"Category",L"Slow") END_TEST_METHOD_ATTRIBUTE() TEST_METHOD(TestMethod3) { Assert::AreEqual(2,6); } How can this be achieved via Boost Unit Test Library? Are there macros to achieve the same? Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards, Hemanth Choudary MV RBEI/ETA1

2 1

[filesystem] fix recur_dir_itr_imp::increment(system::error_code* ec) in 1.54.0
by claudio.bley＠gmail.com 19 Dec '13

19 Dec '13

Hi. What's happening to the filesystem library? It seems there's no progress on any tickets in the bug tracker? Referring to https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6821#comment:5 Could we get this fix into 1.54.0, please? BTW, sorry for any confusion - I "managed" to comment on the wrong ticket... https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/5403 would've been more appropriate, I guess. Claudio -- Claudio

3 4

RFC: edit_distance / edit_alignment library
by Erik Erlandson 18 Dec '13

18 Dec '13

Boost Community, I cooked up a library that provides a pair of functions: edit_distance() and edit_alignment(). The library currently lives here: https://github.com/erikerlandson/edit_distance Some short example programs are here: https://github.com/erikerlandson/edit_distance/tree/master/examples A few example expressions: // the edit distance (aka levenshtein distance) unsigned dist = edit_distance("abc", "bcd"); // using a custom cost function for insertion, deletion, substitution unsigned dist = edit_distance("abc", "bcd", custom_cost_function()); // accepts arbitrary sequences, ranges, range adaptors unsigned dist = edit_distance(as_vector("abc"), as_list("bcd") | boost::adaptors::reversed); // obtain the edit distance and the list of the edit operation codes (in output iterator) unsigned dist = edit_alignment("abc", "bcd", std::ostream_iterator<edit_opcode>(std::cout, "")).second; // adaptors to add edit operation costs and sequence elements to the edit operation output unsigned dist = acquire<elements>(acquire<costs>(edit_alignment))("abc", "bcd", std::ostream_iterator<boost::tuple<edit_opcode, unsigned, char, char> >(std::cout, "")).second; I'm interested in community feedback on whether these would be a useful addition to boost::algorithms. I envision these as the first additions to an eventually-larger library of other kinds of string distances, dynamic programming, and other algorithms for sequence alignment.

4 17

[tweener] Doxygen documentation issues
by Julien Jorge 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Hi, I am writing the documentation of Boost.Tweener and I encounter various difficulties. One of them is the generation of the class documentation with doxygen. It seems that it cannot extract the class and member documentation from .ipp files. I like to document the methods of my classes near the implementation. In Boost.Tweener, most of the class documentation is then in the .ipp files and I have written the following lines in the Jamfile.v2: import quickbook ; using boostbook ; using doxygen ; doxygen reference : [ glob ../../../boost/tweener/*.hpp ] [ glob ../../../boost/tweener/detail/*.hpp ] [ glob ../../../boost/tweener/detail/impl/*.ipp ] [ glob ../../../boost/tweener/detail/impl/easing/*.ipp ] [ glob ../../../boost/tweener/easing/*.hpp ] But when I try to build the documentation, I have the following error: boost_1_52_0/tools/build/v2/build/generators.jam:1085: in ensure-type from module generators error: target { ../../../boost/tweener/detail/impl/tweener_group.ipp. } has no type Moreover, if I remove the ipp files, the generation of the documentation does not fail but the doxygen documentation is not extracted, except for the private members. So, how can I also disable the extraction of the private members in the documentation? You can check the Jamfile.v2 in the git repository of the project: http://libclaw.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libclaw/boost-tweener;a… Regards, Julien

4 6

[mpl] integral_c [type_traits] integral_constant limits
by vicente.botet 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Hi, I was testing Boost.Ratio with gcc-4.6 c++0x and I get some compile errors when instantiating std::cout << boost::mpl::integral_c< boost::intmax_t, boost::integer_traits<boost::intmax_t>::const_max >::value ; ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:24:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a valid template argument for type 'long long int' because it is a non-constant expression ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a constant expression integral_wrapper.hpp:72 contains typedef AUX_WRAPPER_INST( BOOST_MPL_AUX_STATIC_CAST(AUX_WRAPPER_VALUE_TYPE, (value + 1)) ) next; The same line pass with gcc-4.6, gcc-4.5 and gcc-4.5 c++0x with just a warning. ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:23:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] integral_c is by integral_constant, but integral_constant doesn't needs next a prior types. This means that with the current implementation we can not use integral_constant with the max value of the type. Do you think this is a bug in integral_constant? Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/

5 7

[accumulators] Help understanding implementation of weighted accumulators
by Gabriel Redner 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

Hi folks, I am trying to implement a weighted accumulator, but I'm having trouble understanding a few things about the existing ones. Looking at the implementation of weighted_sum, I see (weighted_sum.hpp:37): template<typename Args> weighted_sum_impl(Args const &args) : weighted_sum_( args[parameter::keyword<Tag>::get() | Sample()] * numeric::one<Weight>::value ) { } My questions are: - It's taking the first sample from the args and multiplying it by a weight of 1. Isn't this wrong - ignoring the real weight of this sample? Shouldn't this produce incorrect results? - I've never understood anyways how there can be an initial argument during construction of the accumulator. I haven't found any explanation in the docs beyond "Maybe there is an initial value in the argument pack". Maybe? How? Probably more questions later. Thanks, -Gabe

2 4

[scope_exit] D-style scope(failure) and scope(success) in C++
by Evgeny Panasyuk 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Hello all, D language has scope(exit), scope(success) and scope(failure) features - http://dlang.org/statement.html#ScopeGuardStatement : "... scope(exit) executes NonEmptyOrScopeBlockStatement when the scope exits normally or when it exits due to exception unwinding. scope(failure) executes NonEmptyOrScopeBlockStatement when the scope exits due to exception unwinding. scope(success) executes NonEmptyOrScopeBlockStatement when the scope exits normally. ..." Andrei Alexandrescu describes some of uses cases for scope(exit), scope(success), scope(failure) at his recent talk : http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/Three-Unlikely-Suc… There is Boost.ScopeExit library which emulates D's scope(exit) via BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT macro, but there are no analogues for D's scope(failure) and scope(success). Current alternative for these features is ScopeGuard idiom ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/Scope_Guard , http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/generic-change-the-way-you-write-excepti/1844037… ). Boost.ScopeExit library itself suggests to use ScopeGuard - http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/scope_exit/doc/html/scope_exit/al… : " Boost.ScopeExit is similar to scope(exit) feature built into the D programming language. A curious reader may notice that the library does not implement scope(success) and scope(failure) of the D language. Unfortunately, these are not possible in C++ because failure or success conditions cannot be determined by calling std::uncaught_exception (see Guru of the Week #47 for details about std::uncaught_exception and if it has any good use at all). However, this is not a big problem because these two D's constructs can be expressed in terms of scope(exit) and a bool commit variable (similarly to some examples presented in the Tutorial section). " I have made small library ( https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding#d-style-scope-guardsactions ) which supplies primitives (class unwinding_indicator, UNWINDING_AWARE_DESTRUCTOR macro) to determining when object destructor is called due to stack-unwinding or due to normal scope leaving. Currently it is implemented on top of platform-specific implementation of uncaught_exception_count function and tested on: {MSVC2005, MSVC2008, MSVC2010, MSVC2012, GCC4.1.2, GCC4.4.6, Clang3.2}x{x32, x64}x{default settings}. uncaught_exception_count is a function similar to std::uncaught_exception from standard library, but instead of boolean result it returns unsigned int showing current count of uncaught exceptions. Such primitives allow us to implement scope(success) and scope(failure) features in C++. I have made several proof-of-concepts: * https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding/blob/master/examples/scope_ac… * https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding/blob/master/examples/example_… * https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding/blob/master/examples/scope_gu… * https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding/blob/master/examples/boost_sc… boost_scopes.cpp example shows usage of BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE and BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS: try { cout << "Case #1: stack unwinding" << endl; BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT(void) { cout << "exit" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_END BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE(void) { cout << "failure" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE_END BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS(void) { cout << "success" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS_END throw 1; } catch(int){} { cout << "Case #2: normal exit" << endl; BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT(void) { cout << "exit" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_EXIT_END BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE(void) { cout << "failure" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE_END BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS(void) { cout << "success" << endl; } BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS_END } Output is: " Case #1: stack unwinding failure exit Case #2: normal exit success exit " Currently BOOST_SCOPE_FAILURE and BOOST_SCOPE_SUCCESS are implemented based on boost_1_51_0/boost/scope_exit.hpp by copy-paste and replace (just for proof-or-concept, of course it is possible solution with much less duplication). Semantically meaningful changes can be viewed as diff at https://github.com/panaseleus/stack_unwinding/commit/d5513404323490ea99d9b6… Before posting here, I made posts on several C++ forums, but unfortunately get only a few feedbacks regarding ScopeFailure and ScopeSuccess. What do you think? Thank you. P.S. Related discussion: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/09/171051.php Best Regards, Evgeny Panasyuk

6 27

[thread] synchronized_value: value and move semantics
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 24 Sep '13

24 Sep '13

Hi, boost::synchronized_value (not released yet [1][2][3]) is based on [4]. See below part of this paper adapted to the Boost.Thread interface. Currently boost::synchronized_value is in addition Copyable and Swappable. I was wondering if it is worth adding value and move semantics to synchronized_value. Making it EqualityComparable, LessThanComparable and Movable if the underlying type satisfy these requirements will allow to store them on a Boost.Container/C++11 container. Do you see something completely wrong with this addition? Has some of you had a need for this? Could you share the context? Best, Vicente [1] https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/boost/thread/synchronized_value.hpp [2] https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/thread/example/synchronized_valu… [3] https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/thread/example/synchronized_pers… [4] "Enforcing Correct Mutex Usage with Synchronized Values" by Anthony Williams http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/enforcing-correct-mutex-usage-with-synch/2252002… ------------- [section The Problem with Mutexes] The key problem with protecting shared data with a mutex is that there is no easy way to associate the mutex with the data. It is thus relatively easy to accidentally write code that fails to lock the right mutex - or even locks the wrong mutex - and the compiler will not help you. std::mutex m1; int value1; std::mutex m2; int value2; int readValue1() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lk(m1); return value1; } int readValue2() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lk(m1); // oops: wrong mutex return value2; } Moreover, managing the mutex lock also clutters the source code, making it harder to see what is really going on. The use of synchronized_value solves both these problems - the mutex is intimately tied to the value, so you cannot access it without a lock, and yet access semantics are still straightforward. For simple accesses, synchronized_value behaves like a pointer-to-T; for example: boost::synchronized_value<std::string> value3; std::string readValue3() { return *value3; } void setValue3(std::string const& newVal) { *value3=newVal; } void appendToValue3(std::string const& extra) { value3->append(extra); } Both forms of pointer dereference return a proxy object rather than a real reference, to ensure that the lock on the mutex is held across the assignment or method call, but this is transparent to the user. [endsect] [/The Problem with Mutexes] [section Beyond Simple Accesses] The pointer-like semantics work very well for simple accesses such as assignment and calls to member functions. However, sometimes you need to perform an operation that requires multiple accesses under protection of the same lock, and that's what the synchronize() method provides. By calling synchronize() you obtain an strict_lock_ptr object that holds a lock on the mutex protecting the data, and which can be used to access the protected data. The lock is held until the strict_lock_ptr object is destroyed, so you can safely perform multi-part operations. The strict_lock_ptr object also acts as a pointer-to-T, just like synchronized_value does, but this time the lock is already held. For example, the following function adds a trailing slash to a path held in a synchronized_value. The use of the strict_lock_ptr object ensures that the string hasn't changed in between the query and the update. void addTrailingSlashIfMissing(boost::synchronized_value<std::string> & path) { boost::strict_lock_ptr<std::string> u=path.synchronize(); if(u->empty() || (*u->rbegin()!='/')) { *u+='/'; } } [endsect] [/Beyond Simple Accesses] [section Operations Across Multiple Objects] Though synchronized_value works very well for protecting a single object of type T, nothing that we've seen so far solves the problem of operations that require atomic access to multiple objects unless those objects can be combined within a single structure protected by a single mutex. One way to protect access to two synchronized_value objects is to construct a strict_lock_ptr for each object and use those to access the respective protected values; for instance: synchronized_value<std::queue<MessageType> > q1,q2; void transferMessage() { strict_lock_ptr<std::queue<MessageType> > u1 = q1.synchronize(); strict_lock_ptr<std::queue<MessageType> > u2 = q2.synchronize(); if(!u1->empty()) { u2->push_back(u1->front()); u1->pop_front(); } } This works well in some scenarios, but not all - if the same two objects are updated together in different sections of code then you need to take care to ensure that the strict_lock_ptr objects are constructed in the same sequence in all cases, otherwise you have the potential for deadlock. This is just the same as when acquiring any two mutexes. In order to be able to use the dead-lock free lock algorithms we need to use instead unique_lock_ptr, which is Lockable. synchronized_value<std::queue<MessageType> > q1,q2; void transferMessage() { unique_lock_ptr<std::queue<MessageType> > u1 = q1.unique_synchronize(boost::defer_lock); unique_lock_ptr<std::queue<MessageType> > u2 = q2.unique_synchronize(boost::defer_lock); boost::lock(u1,u2); // dead-lock free algorithm if(!u1->empty()) { u2->push_back(u1->front()); u1->pop_front(); } } [endsect] [/Operations Across Multiple Objects]

6 19

[asio] Randomly having problems reading from the socket
by Torben Wiggerich 29 Jul '13

29 Jul '13

Hi all, I have some problems using the boost.asio.read for a TCP-socket. So far it works fine, but it randomly stops the transfer for at least 5 seconds. To resolve the error I used a simple synchronous server and client from the boost examples and modified it too send a larger amount of data. (307400 Bytes; this size comes from the program I'm trying to get run). On the client side I also changed the reading from the socket to read the complete data with boost.asio.read and transfer_all as argument. Both, server and client, measure the time for sending and reading to the socket and will give an error if it needs more than 1 second. Here is the sourcecode for the server: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <boost/asio.hpp> #include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp> using boost::asio::ip::tcp; using namespace boost::posix_time; int main() { try { boost::asio::io_service io_service; tcp::acceptor acceptor(io_service, tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), 8002)); tcp::socket socket(io_service); acceptor.accept(socket); unsigned char * array = new unsigned char[307400]; for (;;) { boost::system::error_code ignored_error; ptime startTime = microsec_clock::universal_time(); boost::asio::write(socket, boost::asio::buffer( array, 307400 ), boost::asio::transfer_all(), ignored_error); time_duration neededTime = microsec_clock::universal_time() - startTime; if ( neededTime.total_milliseconds() > 1000 ) { std::cout << "ERROR needed too much time: " << neededTime.total_milliseconds() << "ms" << std::endl; } } } catch (std::exception& e) { std::cerr << e.what() << std::endl; } return 0; } My client sourcecode: #include <iostream> #include <boost/array.hpp> #include <boost/asio.hpp> #include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp> using boost::asio::ip::tcp; using namespace boost::posix_time; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { try { if (argc != 2) { std::cerr << "Usage: client <host>" << std::endl; return 1; } boost::asio::io_service io_service; boost::asio::ip::tcp::endpoint endpoint( boost::asio::ip::address::from_string( argv[1] ), 8002 ); tcp::socket socket(io_service); boost::system::error_code error = boost::asio::error::host_not_found; socket.connect( endpoint, error ); if (error) throw boost::system::system_error(error); int counter = 0; unsigned char* array = new unsigned char[307400]; for (;;) { boost::system::error_code error; ptime startTime = microsec_clock::universal_time(); size_t len = boost::asio::read( socket, boost::asio::buffer( array, 307400 ), boost::asio::transfer_all(), error ); time_duration neededTime = microsec_clock::universal_time() - startTime; if ( error ) { printf( "body read error %s\n", error.message().c_str() ); } if ( counter % 5000 == 0 ) { std::cout << "passed: " << counter << "\r"; } ++counter; if ( neededTime.total_milliseconds() > 1000 ) { std::cout << "ERROR needed too much time: " << neededTime.total_milliseconds() << "ms" << std::endl; } } } catch (std::exception& e) { std::cerr << e.what() << std::endl; } return 0; } To reproduce the error just let it run for a while. It can take up to 30 minutes or even more... After a while it will produce the line: "ERROR needed too much time: 5007ms". Maybe with slightly different times, but all around 5 seconds. I tested it on different machines with Windows Vista and Seven. So am I'm doing sth. wrong? Is the reading from the socket correct? I'm using boost version 1.44. Kind regards Torben Wiggerich

6 12

safe bool not safe enough ?
by John Maddock 28 Jul '13

28 Jul '13

Just discovered (oops!) that the so called safe bool ideom is not as safe as it appears, for example: class Testable { bool ok_; typedef void (Testable::*bool_type)() const; void this_type_does_not_support_comparisons() const {} public: explicit Testable(bool b=true):ok_(b) {} operator bool_type() const { return ok_==true ? &Testable::this_type_does_not_support_comparisons : 0; } }; Testable t(true); bool b = t; // Compiles OK - Ooops! Which is causing multiprecision to misbehave when used in conjunction with uBlas: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8292#comment:2 I guess making the conversion explicit in C++11 mode would help (I still need to test that), but is there a C++03 solution? Thanks, John.

4 9