March 2017 - Boost - lists.boost.org

[review queue] What to do about the library review queue?
by Niall Douglas 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Dear Boost, I see that new candidate Boost libraries entering the review queue have exploded in recent years, with no less than *twenty-three* proposed libraries awaiting a review. As the ongoing strength and vitality of Boost is inextricably linked to new growth, I think that waiting around for years for someone to volunteer to manage a review is not healthy. If a library author has invested the very significant effort to develop a Boost-quality library, the least Boost can do is to try harder to provide timely reviews and that means persuading more people to volunteer to manage reviews. In the past people have argued that for every library you submit for review, you should manage a review in return. Myself, Antony and a few others have adhered to that rule, and if every library author did so there would be no outstanding review queue. However there are problems in that in itself in terms of moral hazard, and also because the review manager needs to usually be fairly expert in a library being reviewed, else it can be very hard to judge the worth and validity of reviews. A shortage of suitably expert review managers will always be a problem for some types of library. I therefore ask boost-dev what to do? Some options: 1. Pay US$1000 (one thousand) dollars to each person who manages a review. In case you're worried Boost doesn't have the money, it does in spades, that's not a problem. For $23,000 we could clear the current review queue assuming none of the problems mentioned yet. 2. Pay US$1000 dollars to the manager and 2x $500 dollar payments to those writing the top two most useful reviews as judged by the review manager. That makes the cost $2000 per library accepted or rejected, or $46,000 to clear the current review queue. 3. In my own opinion from reviewing the review queue, a good 25% of the libraries in the queue are not ready for review due to obvious glaring deficiencies in the documentation or code. Spending a grand on those libraries which will very obviously be rejected isn't worth the money. What should we do about those? One approach could simply be to trust review managers to not abuse the thousand dollar fee. Another could be that before each new review, the prospective manager needs to write a single line comment on why they did not choose the other libraries in the queue and publish that here before starting a review. That would quickly identify those libraries in the queue which a majority of managers think have serious problems and could never pass any review. If say a library in a queue accumulates three single line black marks, the author might be encouraged to withdraw it. 4. Finally there is the problem of libraries of high quality, but not a good fit for Boost because they are so esoteric and niche that nobody could provide a useful review, and without useful reviews the review manager can't really recommend acceptance. This will be an increasing problem with time anyway as more of the low hanging C++ library fruit is picked, but I suppose one could just kick that decision can down the road and see if 2x $500 payments might help scare up more high quality reviews. 5. We could try guilting more people into review managing, and redouble banging the drum to scare up more volunteers. I look forward to seeing what people think. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

29 104

[1.64] Can't configure msvc-14.1
by John Maddock 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

So... I have in my user-config.jam: using msvc : 14.1 : "M:/Compilers/VC2017/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.10.25017/bin/HostX64/x64/cl.exe" ; And this did work at one point, but both with latest develop and master I now get: M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/tools\msvc.jam:1103: in configure-really *** argument error * rule generate-setup-cmd ( version : command : parent : options * : cpu : global-setup ? : default-global-setup-options : default-setup ) * called with: ( 14.10.25017 14.10.25017 : M:/Compilers/VC2017/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.10.25017/bin/HostX64/x64 : M:\Compilers\VC2017\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.10.25017\bin\HostX64 : <command>M:\Compilers\VC2017\VC\Tools\MSVC\14.10.25017\bin\HostX64\x64\cl.exe <command>M:/Compilers/VC2017/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.10.25017/bin/HostX64/x64/cl.exe : i386 : : x86 : vcvars32.bat ) * extra argument 14.10.25017 M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/tools\msvc.jam:811:see definition of rule 'generate-setup-cmd' being called M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/tools\msvc.jam:201: in configure M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/tools\msvc.jam:153: in msvc.init M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/build\toolset.jam:43: in toolset.using M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src/build\project.jam:1052: in using C:\cygwin64\home\John\user-config.jam:46: in modules.load M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src\build-system.jam:249: in load-config M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src\build-system.jam:389: in load-configuration-files M:/data/boost/boost/tools/build/src\build-system.jam:524: in load M:\data\boost\boost\tools\build\src/kernel\modules.jam:295: in import M:\data\boost\boost\tools\build\src/kernel/bootstrap.jam:139: in boost-build M:\data\boost\boost\boost-build.jam:17: in module scope Anyone any ideas? Thanks, John. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

1 0

Clang 4.0.0 MPL error in Boost next.hpp and prior.hpp
by Paul A. Bristow 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

I am trying to check code that works on VS2015 update 3 and GCC 6.3.0 using Clang 4.0.0 I am using the CodeBlocks IDE (though I don't think that is relevant). The code indirectly uses next.hpp and prior.hpp There are several warnings like this (after adding the -Wignored-attributes option) C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\include\immintrin.h|45|warning: __declspec attribute 'intrin_type' is not supported [-Wignored-attributes] I:\modular-boost\boost\mpl\next_prior.hpp|44|error: too many arguments provided to function-like macro invocation| Following suggestions in this thread, I have added -Wno-invalid-token-paste http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/invalid-token-paste-td4025526.h… and also -DBOOST_PP_CONFIG_FLAGS=1, but I get a blizzard of errors - see below It would seem that this may be because of a misconfiguration in Boost mpl? If I understand right, the thread above suggests that this is MS pre-processor-specific MPL code because of code in boost/preprocessor/config/config.hpp that determines the MPL code? Is this correct? Target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc -triple x86_64-pc-windows-msvc19.0.24123 Complete log attached in case this helps. Can anyone say what I am doing wrong and/or suggest a workaround for this? Thanks Paul Compile line is clang++.exe -Wall -fexceptions -Wignored_attributes -D"BOOST_PP_CONFIG_FLAGS()"=1 -m64 -v -Wignored-attributes -Wno-invalid-token-paste -II:\modular-boost -I"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 14.0\VC\include" -c J:\Cpp\Misc\lambert_w_single\lambert_w_single.cpp -o .objs\Misc\lambert_w_single\lambert_w_single.o clang version 4.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_400/final) Target: x86_64-pc-windows-msvc Thread model: posix InstalledDir: C:\LLVM\bin "C:\\LLVM\\bin\\clang++.exe" -cc1 -triple x86_64-pc-windows-msvc19.0.24123 In file included from I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/next.hpp:17: I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/next_prior.hpp:44:23: error: too many arguments provided to function-like macro invocation BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC(1, next) ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/preprocessor/facilities/expand.hpp:26:10: note: macro 'BOOST_PP_EXPAND_I' defined here # define BOOST_PP_EXPAND_I(x) x ^ In file included from I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/next.hpp:17: I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/next_prior.hpp:44:1: error: expected a qualified name after 'typename' BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC(1, next) ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:161:40: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC' #define BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC(i, name) \ ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:154:47: note: expanded from macro '\ BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_NO_ETI' #define BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_NO_ETI(i, name) \ ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:64:11: note: expanded from macro '\ BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_MAIN' BOOST_MPL_PP_PARAMS(i, typename T) \ ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/preprocessor/params.hpp:58:11: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_MPL_PP_PARAMS' , BOOST_MPL_PP_AUX_PARAM_FUNC \ ^ ... I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/void.hpp:71:1: error: expected ',' or '>' in template-parameter-list I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:161:40: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC' #define BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC(i, name) \ ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:154:47: note: expanded from macro '\ BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_NO_ETI' #define BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_NO_ETI(i, name) \ ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/mpl/aux_/na_spec.hpp:65:9: note: expanded from macro '\ BOOST_MPL_AUX_NA_SPEC_MAIN' BOOST_MPL_PP_NESTED_DEF_PARAMS_TAIL(i, typename T, na) \ ^ note: (skipping 6 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace-limit=0 to see all) I:\modular-boost\boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat.hpp:38:37: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1' # define BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1(c, m, d) BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1_I(c, m, d) ^ I:\modular-boost\boost/preprocessor/repetition/repeat.hpp:43:39: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1_I' # define BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1_I(c, m, d) BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1_ ## c(m, d) ^ <scratch space>:64:1: note: expanded from here BOOST_PP_REPEAT_1_BOOST_PP_REM ^ fatal error: too many errors emitted, stopping now [-ferror-limit=] --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830

4 53

Constructing string_ref from rvalue string
by Simon Sasburg 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

I've just tested our codebase with the 1.64.0 master snapshot, and i've encountered an issue which i've tracked down to this commit: https://github.com/boostorg/utility/commit/9960d9f395b79ee860e39064cd4696 1f76d2cb55 Basically this removes the constructor which allows constructing a boost::string_ref from an rvalue std::string. I am wondering if this is really that dangerous. In our codebase we almost exlusively use boost::string_ref as function parameters, with the understanding that passed string_refs parameters are only valid within the function body. (so you need to copy it into an std::string if you need to access it afterwards) With these constraints i think it is OK to construct a string_ref from an rvalue std::string because the temporary should live long enough. (but please correct me if i'm wrong here) Is the safety (?) added by this commit worth it if it breaks working code? Simon

11 20

Undefined refs when compiling trivial example
by Florian Lindner 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Hello, I took the trivial example from http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/libs/log/example/doc/tutorial_trivial.… and try to compile it. boost 1.63 is compiled by myself without any special options, besides --prefix. % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH /home/lindnefn/software/boost/lib: % echo $LIBRARY_PATH /home/lindnefn/software/boost/lib: % echo $CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH /home/lindnefn/software/boost/include: the LIBRARY_PATH contains all the *.so and *.a files, the INCLUDE_PATH/boost all the headers. but compiling fails: lindnefn@helium ~ % g++ -std=c++11 -DBOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK -pthread -lboost_log_setup -lboost_log -lboost_thread -lboost_filesystem boostlog_trivial.cpp /tmp/ccUc6CtH.o: In function `main': boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0x48): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0x76): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0xe8): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0x116): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0x188): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' /tmp/ccUc6CtH.o:boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text+0x1b6): more undefined references to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::logger::get()' follow /tmp/ccUc6CtH.o: In function `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::record::reset()': boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text._ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix6record5resetEv[_ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix6record5resetEv]+0x23): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::record_view::public_data::destroy(boost::log::v2_mt_posix::record_view::public_data const*)' /tmp/ccUc6CtH.o: In function `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::record boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::basic_composite_logger<char, boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::severity_logger_mt<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::severity_level>, boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::multi_thread_model<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::aux::light_rw_mutex>, boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::features<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::severity<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::severity_level> > >::open_record<boost::parameter::aux::tagged_argument<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::keywords::tag::severity, boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::severity_level const> >(boost::parameter::aux::tagged_argument<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::keywords::tag::severity, boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::severity_level const> const&)': boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text._ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix7sources22basic_composite_loggerIcNS2_18severity_logger_mtINS1_7trivial14severity_levelEEENS2_18multi_thread_modelINS1_3aux14light_rw_mutexEEENS2_8featuresIJNS2_8severityIS6_EEEEEE11open_recordINS_9parameter3aux15tagged_argumentINS1_8keywords3tag8severityEKS6_EEEENS1_6recordERKT_[_ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix7sources22basic_composite_loggerIcNS2_18severity_logger_mtINS1_7trivial14severity_levelEEENS2_18multi_thread_modelINS1_3aux14light_rw_mutexEEENS2_8featuresIJNS2_8severityIS6_EEEEEE11open_recordINS_9parameter3aux15tagged_argumentINS1_8keywords3tag8severityEKS6_EEEENS1_6recordERKT_]+0x3c): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::core::get_logging_enabled() const' /tmp/ccUc6CtH.o: In function `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::aux::record_pump<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::sources::severity_logger_mt<boost::log::v2_mt_posix::trivial::severity_level> >::~record_pump()': boostlog_trivial.cpp:(.text._ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix3aux11record_pumpINS1_7sources18severity_logger_mtINS1_7trivial14severity_levelEEEED2Ev[_ZN5boost3log11v2_mt_posix3aux11record_pumpINS1_7sources18severity_logger_mtINS1_7trivial14severity_levelEEEED5Ev]+0x4b): undefined reference to `boost::log::v2_mt_posix::aux::unhandled_exception_count()' [...] I also tried to omit -DBOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK, add -static instead or use clang++ instead of g++. I also tried to shuffle the order of -l ... All gives the same error. Build machine is a Ubuntu 16.04.4 , g++ 5.4.0. What could be wrong? Thanks, Florian

2 1

Re: [boost] [gsoc17]The implement of Programming competency test From Ruoyun Jing
by Ruoyun Jing 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Hi Adam and Vissarion, During these days I discussed the ideas of project 1 and begin to write my proposal. Here are what I learn about these project. 1.For the approach of compute the 3D cartesian distances first and if these numbers are not "far enough" then fall back to expensive geographic distance calculation otherwise return the result by comparing those numbers obtained by less expensive cartesian compuation. The main problems is declare the "far enough". To figure out this problem, I would implement the method, test the result between function compare_distance and this method, then adjust parameter to limit deviation in an acceptable range(maybe it would be 1e-6 correapongs, the accurate value should be discussed by specific condition) 2.For the approach of perform a local spheroid approximation and return the 2D distance. The main problem is to test the acceptable range of using spheroid approximation. The solution is same as answer above. 3.For the approach of getting 2 intersections of plane (which would be ellipse) with the help given points and compute the respective distances using those ellipses. In my understand of these approach, it means we need to get cross-section through the center of ellipsoid and the geodesic segments. But I am not sure that the geodesic segments of two points whether can get a cross-section through the center of ellipsoid, and whether the cross-section is ellipse that we can calculate the sectorial area easy to compare. After check out the geodesic knowledge from differential geometry for a long time. I got some prove, but I think it isn't very reliable. 4.I have an reliable approach is that we could use the algorithms in "map projection" just like Lambert Conformal Conic, Gauss–Krüger projection, Mercator projection...etc, Those projections make the point on 3D to 2D with reliable functions, although most of these projections use longitude and latitude, we could transform our cartisian coordinate into Spherical coordinate then transform them into longitude and latitude then use the projection to approximately calculate. All of above is what I discussed during these days, Could you please provide me some advise about them so I can strenthen my proposal?And if there has any problems about my poor English description please tell me, I will try my best to explain more clearly:) Thanks all for your reading! Looking forward from you.:) Ruoyun -- Northwest University of China Software Engineering jingry0321(a)gmail.com <jingry0321(a)163.com>

2 3

My Proposal for GSoC
by Mukund Chandra 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Dear Sir, I want you to review the draft of my proposal and suggest me what I should do so that I can work with this project. The project is Project 1 for Boost.Geometry about filtering of compare distance predicates. Here is the link for my Proposal Draft : https://github.com/MukundChandra/Programs-For-GSoC/blob/MukundChandra-patch…

2 1

[gsoc2017] Applying for Boost.Geometry Project 1
by NowhereMan 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Hello, I wish to pursue a path in GSOC 2017 with boost, specifically Project 1 which involves optimization of compare distance predicates. My name is Cody Glassman, a first-year student at my local Community College in Southern California, on a path to obtaining my BS in Computer Science from the University of California system. I am currently working hard developing a concise, yet thorough competency test and am hoping to establish contact with a mentor. Thank you! Cody -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc2017-Applying-for-Boost-Geometry-Pro… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

small_vector alignment
by Tobias Loew 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Hi, I wanted to use a boost::container::small_vector for 64-bit aligned doubles (to be used with SSE): But it seems that the "small-buffer" has a fixed calculated alignment which only depends on the value-type and does not consider the alignment of the (dynamic) allocator. Is this intended or is it a bug in the implementation? best regards Tobias -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/small-vector-alignment-tp4692694.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

4 5

[geometry] Documentation garbage (Re: [Boost-announce] [release] Boost 1.64.0 Beta 1)
by Mateusz Loskot 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

On 23 March 2017 at 15:11, Rene Rivera <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Boost release 1.64.0 beta 1 is now available at: > [...] > Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you > encounter. I noticed, the package consists of intermediate files from docs generation process of Boost.Geometry: /libs/geometry/doc/doxy/doxygen_output/html_by_doxygen /libs/geometry/doc/doxy/doxygen_output/xml May I ask how documentation of individual library makes it into the package? /libs/geometry/doc/Jamfile.v2 calls our custom make_qbk.py script which is known to not to do any post-generation clean-ups of intermediate files. Shall we add such cleanup to make_qbk.py or it is not relevant for release process? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

2 3