March 2016 - Boost - lists.boost.org

[MSM] Surprising Entry Point behaviour
by Michael Caisse 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hi Christophe - I'm seeing some surprising behaviour when I have a sub-machine that can only be entered via an entry point. I have attached a diagram for quick reference. Code is below to demonstrate the "issue". Moving into the Sub state should only generate transitions into A with a 'none' event. The only way to get to B is via a transition from A with the 'event' event. MSM is trying to generate code into B for a transition with a 'none' event. This could be valid if the transition from Top::X wasn't via the entry point and just directly to Sub. I don't think there is a path to B with a 'none' event. Thoughts? Take care - michael ---------------- #include <boost/msm/front/state_machine_def.hpp> #include <boost/msm/front/functor_row.hpp> #include <boost/msm/back/state_machine.hpp> using boost::msm::front::none; using boost::msm::front::Row; namespace msm = boost::msm; struct event { int foo; }; struct Sub_ : public msm::front::state_machine_def<Sub_> { struct Enter : public msm::front::entry_pseudo_state<0> {}; struct A : msm::front::state<> {}; struct B : msm::front::state<> { template<class FSM> void on_entry(event const & evt, FSM &) {} }; using initial_state = A; struct transition_table : boost::mpl::vector< // Start Event Next Action Guard // +----------+---------+--------+-----------+-------- Row < Enter , none , A , none , none >, Row < A , event , B , none , none >, Row < B , none , A , none , none > // +----------+---------+--------+-----------+-------- >{}; }; using Sub = msm::back::state_machine<Sub_>; struct Top_ : public msm::front::state_machine_def<Top_> { struct X : msm::front::state<> {}; using initial_state = X; struct transition_table : boost::mpl::vector< // S Event Next Action Guard // +----+-------+-----------------------------+-------+------- Row < X , none , Sub::entry_pt<Sub_::Enter> , none , none > // +----+-------+-----------------------------+-------+------- >{}; }; using Top = boost::msm::back::state_machine<Top_>; int main() { Top top; top.start(); } ------------------------- -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com

2 1

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Fit] formal review - should we propose some parts to Boost.Config/Boost.Core
by Glen Fernandes 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote: > Others could be considered also as function.hpp, lambda.hpp and lift.hpp, as > the macros are there to workaround some missing language features, but those > are much more specialized (Boost.Core?) > Boost.Core is where we move code from existing Boost libraries that enables breaking cyclic dependencies between different Boost libraries. I'm not so sure new libraries will need to (or want to) put code there. Glen

2 1

[Fit] review
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Paul, could you send me a private mail, I don't reach to send you any private mail. I'm always getting Hallovicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr, Sie erhalten diese E-Mail, weil die Gruppe, die Sie kontaktieren möchten (boost-devel-archive), möglicherweise nicht vorhanden ist bzw. Sie nicht die erforderlichen Berechtigungen haben, um der Gruppe Nachrichten zu posten. Nachstehend einige Detailinformationen zu den möglichen Gründen, warum Sie keine Nachricht posten konnten: ... :( Vicente

1 0

[Fit] review - github issuess
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hi, we have started to create some issues in https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/issues, and sometimes there are some interesting discussion. I will try to add post on the MLs the issues that are conflicting so that other are aware of the discussion. Anyway, if you are curious you can always take a look at and participate also. If you want to receive the updates I believe that you just need to click on watch (top right). Best, Vicente

1 0

[asio] Feature request: console IO
by Tatsuyuki Ishi 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hello everyone, here is a greeting for joining the list. I want to request console support in asio. Some reasons: 1. non-block stdin is useful for some applications. 2. Linux can do non-block IO on ttys. Implementation concept: 1. Linux: if using epoll, first check if target is a regular file. If not, fall back to threaded non-blocking IO. select(), poll() can be use on any valid fds. 2. Windows: this garbage doesn't support overlapped console IO. Create a separate thread for std{in,out,err}, then communicate with the thread. 3. Other *nix: I don't know. It could already be used through POSIX stream descriptor, but it is too limited and platform specific. A library can cover these gaps is great. I hope you like this idea.

3 2

[Block Pointer][Container] Works - Take 2
by Phil Bouchard 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Sorry for all the confusion but I was very confused myself. Now the block_ptr<> works in all cases with Linux x86: - I removed the usage of an allocator. Now there is no need for any allocator anymore. - I removed the usage of the strange pointer proxy optimization. Now the memory manager might take more memory but the class is clean and correctly abstracted. - I removed the usage of weak references. This is just too error-prone. But I need to tell whether an address is on the stack or on the heap. There is no portable way to do this except from marking the heap boundaries by overloading an allocator or write assembly code for each architecture / OS. I prefer the latter and I think this should eventually be part of the standards. Once again the working examples are here: https://github.com/philippeb8/block_ptr/blob/master/example/benchmark.cpp https://github.com/philippeb8/block_ptr/blob/master/example/block_ptr_test1… https://github.com/philippeb8/block_ptr/blob/master/example/block_ptr_test2… Regards, -Phil

3 6

merge to master?
by Robert Ramey 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

I've (finally!) got the latest version of the serialization library to pass all the tests on develop. I would like to merge develop to master. May I do this? Robert Ramey

2 4

[Block.Pointer][Container] Works!
by Phil Bouchard 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Ok now everything works!! https://github.com/philippeb8/block_ptr/blob/master/example/block_ptr_test2… So now block_ptr<> is Boost.Container compliant! I still need to fix an issue but it's moving forward! Thanks, -Phil

3 7

[test] Boost.Test fails to build with gcc-4.6
by John Maddock 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

See http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/igaztanaga-…

3 2

[Fit] pipable order of the arguments
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Hi, I would like to know what other think about the order of the pipe (See this issue https://github.com/pfultz2/Fit/issues/5) What would be the expected meaning of auto r1 =1 | pipable(f)(2); f(1,2) or f(2,1)? What would be the expected meaning of auto f2 = partial(f)(2); auto r1 =1 | pipable(f2); f(1,2) or f(2,1)? As the operator| has left-to-right associativity, we can not do auto x = 1 | 2 | pipable(f); We would need a way to pack the parameters auto x = forward_as_tuple(1, 2) | pipable(f); but this wouldn't compile as f has two parameters. or use parenthesis auto x = 1 | (2 | pipable(f)); and the result will be f(2, 1). Any ideas? Best, Vicente Vicente

1 1