May 2014 - Boost - lists.boost.org

github issue
by Christian Henning 02 Jun '14

02 Jun '14

Hi all, I'm cloning boost but something went wrong when trying to get the python submodule. I'm not sure if the problem is related to boost, github, my git setup, or maybe my internet connectivity. Here is a snippet from the console output: ... Cloning into 'libs/proto'... remote: Reusing existing pack: 4233, done. remote: Total 4233 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) Receiving objects: 100% (4233/4233), 1.89 MiB | 893.00 KiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (2062/2062), done. Checking connectivity... done. Cloning into 'libs/ptr_container'... remote: Reusing existing pack: 2887, done. remote: Total 2887 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)Receiving objects: 98% (2830/28 87), 2.36 MiB | 924.00 KiB/s Receiving objects: 100% (2887/2887), 2.78 MiB | 924.00 KiB/s, done. Resolving deltas: 100% (1839/1839), done. Checking connectivity... done. Cloning into 'libs/python'... ssh: github.com: no address associated with name fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. Clone of 'git@github.com:boostorg/python.git' into submodule path 'libs/python' failed I'm using git version 1.9.0.msysgit.0 on Windows 7. Anyone know what's going? Thanks, Christian

2 2

Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
by Niall Douglas 01 Jun '14

01 Jun '14

I'll top post my reply as Robert's valuable post didn't make it onto the list again. Please do read his reply below, it's worth reading as Robert is one of the lead thinkers on the steering committee about this. Robert, I think you are under a misapprehension about what I mean by "fork". By a fork, I mean forking just a very small part of existing Boost, namely whatever minimal support is necessary to start from scratch with a new *empty* set of C++ 14 only Boost libraries. I don't propose to port *any* of the legacy Boost libraries whatsoever, they stay where there are. If their maintainers - or a sponsor - are willing to do: 1. Make their library entirely C++ 11/14 STL based, porting only the absolute minimum of old Boost. 2. C++ Modules ready i.e. restructured and reorganised to properly fit C++ Modules. 3. Contribute any general utility code to the core utilities library, not duplicating any functionality there, and in a form suitable for entering the C++ 17 STL. 4. Meet the raised unit test and CI soak test and sanitiser/valgrind requirements. Then they have a good chance of their library appearing highly ranked in the list of C++ 14 Boost libraries, where that ranking is generated by a set of clang AST analysers. Does this make sense? I am specifically advocating a structural break, a clean start. I think working on a fresh, empty Boost will get people to volunteer to give up family time to write Boost code again. Right now with the present situation there are few incentives to sacrifice family time. That needs to change for Boost to survive, else the continuing slow decline will continue. Niall On 29 May 2014 at 17:52, Robert Ramey wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:17:11 PM UTC-7, Niall Douglas wrote: > > > > On 29 May 2014 at 22:22, Julian Gonggrijp wrote: > > > > If a fork of Boost becomes necessary later this year, > > > LOL - this is not going to be necessary. > > > > The hard part isn't what to do. > > > LOL - not for you! > > > > The hard part is gaining community > > buy in when "their" code gets broken by the necessary changes. I have > > concluded it isn't possible, > > > LOL - you've underestimated the amount of work to convert > everything to C++11 by a factor of .... 1000 ? Basically it's > a whole rewrite of 100 modules. And the gain is ....? > > hence me proposing a fork where such > > "radical" changes won't upset anyone. > > > Your free to do this. And you should if you really believe that > it would benefit anyone or anything. > > > I think it may be easier for the steering committee to justify any > > > decision on this proposal, > > > The steering committee doesn't have anything to decide here. The > "Proposal" is: > > 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries. > > It's not clear what action is being proposed - but I'm pretty sure > the steering committee won't be doing it. > > 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling. > > I'm pretty sure the steering committee won't be doing this either. > If anyone believes that they can implement "simple and > effective" automation of dependency handling - just go ahead > and do it and let us see it. > > > > Decisive and immediate action on this is vital if Boost is to > > survive. I vote yes to both, ASAP. > > > > LOL - There is wide agreement that boost has growing pains and > will have to evolve. But I haven't seen any proposals for > "Decisive and Immediate" which would do anything but make > things worse. > > And since you've got me started - Here is what boost needs go to the next > step. > > a) Make the review process more effective and efficient - we're taking real > practical action to address this now. The jury is still out regarding the > effectiveness of our efforts - but we ARE actually doing something. > > b) Recognize that we now have 4 variants of C++ - C++98, C++03, C++11 > and C++14. Our infrastructure doesn't explicitly address this. The > following > needs to change > 1) for each library we need to explicitly state somewhere what > version(s) of C++ the > library is meant to support. > 2) support running of tests and builds for only those platforms. > > I've suggested that we enhance B2 to address this. So far > no one has responded to this suggestion > > Note that this would have he effect of encouraging libraries to evolve > to later versions of C++ with minimal disruption to both library > authors and users. > > c) Decouple Deployment of Boost Libraries from the Certification > of boost libraries. Beman has noted that what he would like to > see is something like CYGWIN whereby one specifies what one > want's and somehow automagically you get that plush what you > need. I realize that this is more or less what is being suggested here. > But no one has presented credible proposal for making it it happen. > > This would also address the issue of "old" libraries. As they > fall into disuse are become superseded by newer ones, the can > still be in boost even though their frequency of deployment drops off. > > The above constitutes a real path forward. This is what Boost > needs for the next 15 years. > > Robert Ramey > -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

4 4

throw or boost::throw_exception?
by Andrzej Krzemienski 01 Jun '14

01 Jun '14

Hi, I am not sure where, but I am convinced that I have read that it is recommended for Boost libraries that they not use naked throw expressions but instead call boost::throw_exception. Is that true? If so, it enforces a dependency of more than half Boost libraries on Boost.Exception. Am I right? If so, is this the right recommendation in the context of the discussion about reducing dependencies between the libraries? Regards, &rzej

8 22

[next_generation][modularization] Is the community interested in creating a smooth path to a modularized Boost
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 31 May '14

31 May '14

Hi, I've started a new thread in response to Julian Gonggrijp post [modularization] proposal and poll, as I would not answer directly to his questions. I'm sure that almost all of us want a modularized Boost. What does this means? It is up to us to define it: * what the user can request as a delivered package for its own needs? * what the authors must state explicitly? * what must be tested/checked? The main problem is how to achieve it ensuring backward compatibility . I'm persuaded that we need a new Boost repository (or whatever we want to name it) that would include libraries that respect the modularization constraints we could define. My question is who would be interested in starting the next generation of a modularized Boost that starts from a repository of ZERO modularized libraries. The idea is to add to the current Boost libraries new ones that respect the modular rules and adapt the current ones to be defined on top of the modularized ones. At the end we could deprecate the old ones. In order to do that we need of course to add new interfaces (a new namespace mod_boost or whatever is preferred) and so the user would need to move to these interfaces smoothly. Before starting we need to * Define the constraints of a modularized system - no cyclic dependencies, .... * Define the tools that can be used to support the modular system - which build system(s), - which test system(s), - which regression system(s), - which doc system(s), ... * Define the rules - who could be able allowed to do the refactoring? - Should the refactoring be reviewed to ensure a improvement on the quality of Boost? - who maintains what?, ... * Setup the infrastructure ( build system, test system, regression system, doc system, ... ) Only then we could * Start from libraries that don't depend on any other library (with possible refactoring) and adaptation of the refactored libraries from which these modular libraries have been extracted. * Deliver them * Build a second layer of libraries that depend only on first layer * Deliver them * ... Of course, in order to check that the rules and tools are the appropriated ones we will need to experiment with some examples. I recognize that this would mean a lot of work, however I hope that the final result would satisfy better the community expectations and the quality of Boost libraries. Best, Vicente

2 2

[gil] Status of gil:: extension:: io
by William Gallafent 31 May '14

31 May '14

Hi all, I noticed that a major update to gil's io extension was accepted into boost in 2011[1]. It disappeared from its own development repository in 2013[2]. It isn't present in boost 1.55[3]. It is present in boost's subversion trunk[4]. There's currently no mention of it in the release notice for boost 1.56[5]. Am I right to say that its presence in boost trunk means that it /will/ be included in boost 1.56, it just needs to be added to the documentation? If so, then great! Is there anything which needs to be fixed before it's ready to ship? I didn't see anything obvious when I searched this list's archives for “[gil]”. Thanks in particular to Christian, everybody else that worked on the io_new extension, and those that reviewed it! It's very useful to me, and I'm looking forward to its integration into boost so I don't have to add it myself from boost trunk :) [1] http://lists.boost.org/boost-announce/2011/01/0281.php [2] https://code.google.com/p/gil-contributions/source/detail?r=795 [3] http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/tags/release/Boost_1_55_0/boost/gil/extensio… (this is the “old” io extension) [4] http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/boost/gil/extension/io/ (and this is the “new” one) [5] http://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_56_0.html -- Bill Gallafent.

3 6

[optional] Top level bad_optional_access.hpp
by Andrey Semashev 31 May '14

31 May '14

Hi, I've noticed a new top-level header boost/bad_optional_access.hpp. It wasn't present in 1.55, so it is a recent development. AFAIK, top level headers are discouraged, all library specific headers, except the "include all" header, should be inside the library directory. Am I correct? If so, could this header be moved inside boost/optional?

2 2

Standalone boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning()
by Adam Wulkiewicz 31 May '14

31 May '14

Hi, The ignore_unused_variable_warning() tool is used in many libraries. Its "main" definition (probably the first one) is in concept_check.hpp in the namespace boost but functions of the same name and purpose are also defined in the internals of some libraries (GIL, Interval, Test, uBlas, Unordered), probably to not include the whole concept_check.hpp. So I propose to move this useful tool out of the concept_check.hpp to somewhere else. Since it was already defined in the namespace boost, not boost::detail, the right place would probably be: boost/utility/ignore.hpp or boost/utility/ignore_warning.hpp Furthermore I propose to add a few overloads becasue it's common that the compiler warns about a few variables in the same function, so instead of using N calls: boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning(x) boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning(y) boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning(z) we could use only one: boost::ignore_unused_variable_warning(x, y, z) which would be more convenient to use and read. If you were ok with the change, I'd be glad to hear some tips how to make it in one commit, i.e. to modify two modules at once - modify a file in ConceptCheck and add a file to Utility? And finally I'm considering adding similar tool for unused typedefs because some compilers (GCC4.8) warns about them and there are cases, e.g. when some part of code is shielded with some #ifdef, where they can't be commented out or removed. E.g. something like this would work, though I'm not sure if there is no better way, so I'm open to suggestion. struct empty_type {}; template <typename T1, typename T2 = empty_type, typename T3 = empty_type> struct ignore_unused_typedef_warning {}; int main() { typedef int T1; typedef int T2; ignore_unused_typedef_warning<T1, T2>(); } Regards, Adam

7 19

Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll
by Peter Dimov 30 May '14

30 May '14

It didn't make it through. Please use http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report.zip to download the report and http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report/smart_ptr.html (say) to browse it. The version of boostdep I used to generate the report is attached and the generation procedure was as follows: mkdir ..\numeric boostdep.exe --list-modules > ..\modules.txt for /f %i in (..\modules.txt) do boostdep.exe --secondary --html %i > ..\%i.html The links in ..\numeric\*.html are broken because of the subdirectory, but I had no time to fix that. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dimov Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 23:37 To: boost(a)lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] proposal and poll Clickable HTML report for all modules, attached (if it makes it through).

1 0

Adding detection of [u]intptr_t to Boost.Config (moving it from cstdint.hpp)
by Glen Fernandes 30 May '14

30 May '14

Any objection to me doing this? It would, of course, be non-breaking to anyone currently consuming it from Boost.Integer's cstdint.hpp. Glen

5 12

Is this a MSVC bug?
by Andrzej Krzemienski 30 May '14

30 May '14

Hi, While tracking test failures in Boost.Optional library I discovered that the following program fires an assert in MS VC++ compiler (v. 10.0, 11.0, 12.0): #include <cassert> const int global_i = 0; struct TestingReferenceBinding { void operator=(const int& ii) { assert(&ii == &global_i); } void operator=(int&&) { } }; int main() { TestingReferenceBinding ttt; ttt = global_i; } Do you know if this a bug in VC++, or if that is supposed to be valid? Regards, &rzej

7 10