June 2020 - Boost - lists.boost.org

linux build and version symlinks question
by Aleksei Nikiforov 15 Jun '20

15 Jun '20

Hi. I've noticed that some versions ago boost started creating additional symlinks when built for linux. In addition to boost_${library}.so -> boost_${library}.so.A.B.C symlink, two more symlinks are created: boost_${library}.so.A -> boost_${library}.so.A.B.C and boost_${library}.so.A.B -> boost_${library}.so.A.B.C. Additional symlinks started appearing approximately around version 1.70.0. For example, boost 1.67.0 has library libboost_filesystem.so.1.67.0 and a symlink libboost_filesystem.so. Boost 1.73.0 has library libboost_filesystem.so.1.73.0 and 3 symlinks: libboost_filesystem.so, libboost_filesystem.so.1 and libboost_filesystem.so.1.73. My guess is that this change was introduced in following commit by removing install-no-version-symlinks feature for all libraries: https://github.com/boostorg/boost/commit/47ef674f752ad2cfeb581665cbea18ee6f… I couldn't find any mention of such change in changelog or any explanation or description of intention of this change. Did I miss it? Was it an unintentional change? In binary linux distributions, *.so files and header files are usually packed into devel packages, while *.so.* are packed into library packages. In case of boost and those symlinks it can lead to an issue. For example, during upgrade from boost 1.72.0 to boost 1.73.0, while both boost 1.72.0 libraries and 1.73.0 libraries are needed temporarily, boost_${library}.so.1 symlinks from both packages may conflict. These symlinks with same names point to different libraries. It's not an issue for devel packages and *.so symlinks with same names since you don't need two devel packages being installed at same time during upgrade. Besides just removing those symlinks after installation, what's the proper way for disabling creating these additional symlinks when building/installing boost using b2? Kind regards, Aleksei Nikiforov

4 9

[double-ended] where is it?
by degski 15 Jun '20

15 Jun '20

I remember going through this review. It was an active, lively and constructive review. Ever since I've been dying to use this new-fangled vector. The repo is dead, no dev branch being worked on. I am happy to implement this container starting from scratch, using the discussions we've had and the valuable comments as a base. I can give it a try, but it will (by the time it gets out of the sausage machine) be a C++20 lib. If that is not acceptable, then no-can-do. degski 🕔https://mega.nz/C!AlJBkaLI

4 4

Re: [boost] [review] [text] Text formal review
by Bjorn Reese 13 Jun '20

13 Jun '20

Why does Boost.Text contains trie types in their own boost::trie namespace?

2 1

[epochs] Strict vs. lax mode and epoch assignment reports
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 13 Jun '20

13 Jun '20

For those interested in the epoch proposal: * I've included a discussion on an alternative set of rules for epoch assignment dubbed "lax mode": https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch#strict-vs-lax-mode This mode is somewhat more comprehensive that the original, strict mode, in the sense that more libs would progress to higher epochs. Comments welcome on which mode fulfills best the goals of the proposal. * I've written a utility to automate epoch assignment from a core set of human-decided lib rejections: * Strict mode: https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/epoch_report.md * Lax mode: https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/lax_epoch_report.md These are illustrative examples pretty much dependent on what libs are determined to be subsumed by the C++ standard or more modern Boost libs. You can try modifying this (https://github.com/joaquintides/boost_epoch/blob/master/epoch_report/booste… ) and running the epoch report tool to see the results. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz

1 0

[Nowide] Opinion on slightly expanding the scope: LFS and more generic UTF-8 wide<->narrow conversion
by Alexander Grund 12 Jun '20

12 Jun '20

Hi all, just wanted to gather opinions on 2 changes I'd like to make to Boost.Nowide which go slightly above the initial goal: 1. Make detail implementations of widen/narrow public. - Mainly https://github.com/boostorg/nowide/blob/develop/include/boost/nowide/detail… which does templated conversion from/to wide strings which might be useful in generic contexts - But also the underlying UTF decoding/encoding templates initially extracted from Boost.Locale https://github.com/boostorg/nowide/blob/develop/include/boost/nowide/detail… I figured (and experienced) that those might be useful for consumers of Nowide as when they already use those UTF-8 APIs they might have other interface code which needs translation from/to wide strings, so exposing the existing code as a feature might make sense. Basically this would put them under boost::nowide::utf namespace instead of in the detail namespace. I guess I don't need to retain the old ones or put in forwarding headers, do I? 2. As requested and implemented over 2 PRs (last one still open: https://github.com/boostorg/nowide/pull/104) Large files are now supported by boost::nowide::filebuf (technically only used on Windows) but the implementation is pretty portable as e.g. Tests on Unix do use boost::nowide::filebuf. This is done by implementing ftell/fseek via _ftelli64/ftello and configure-time checking availability. As C++ is lacking C-Style file manipulation functions portably working with LFS I think a similar reasoning as above can be applied: It exists, it works and can be useful more generically so moving it out of the detail namespace might make sense. Opinions? Ideas? Regards, Alex PS: If anyone with filesystem experience would like to review #104 or at least glance over it, it would be appreciated.

2 3

How to clean boost::asio::streambuf before writing to it?
by Jupiter 11 Jun '20

11 Jun '20

Sorry, this is really a silly question, but I could not find a clear API in streambuf reference, I have following code to call PacketData in a loop, the buffer.get() looked to accumulate previous data in the buffer, so I should call buffer.clear() before calling buffer.get(), but apparently there no ‘clear’ in boost::asio::basic_streambuf. PacketData(const msgpack::sbuffer &sb, boost::asio::streambuf &buffer)) { ....... std::ostream os(buffer.get()); os.write((char *)&header, sizeof(header)); os.write((char *)sb.data(), sb.size()); ....... } Thank you. Kind regards, - jh -- "A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else." -- John Burroughs

3 4

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Impossible to download a boost source from bintray: 403 Forbidden
by Marshall Clow 08 Jun '20

08 Jun '20

On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:34 AM Eisuke Kawashima via Boost-users < boost-users(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > I cannot download a boost source from bintray, e.g., > https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.73.0/source/boost_1_73_0.tar.bz2 > returns 403 Forbidden. > OTOH, sourceforge works: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.73.0/boost_1_73_0.tar.… > . > > We (boost) have reached our monthly allocation of bandwidth donated by Bintray/JFrog (Thanks, JFrog!) We're trying to figure out how we blew through that much bandwidth in 5+ days. (10s of TB). I will post here again when we know more. -- Marshall

2 2

problem with boost test matrix for serialization related to changes in file system?
by Robert Ramey 08 Jun '20

08 Jun '20

I made a few checkins to the serialization library which I had previously tested on my working system. But Now I'm getting some very weird errors in the Boost Test matrix: https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/serialization.html Anyone who has some useful insight would be free to chime in. According to P Dimov, Filesystem is guilty and i should request help from andrey semashev - so here it is. Robert Ramey

3 3

[review][LEAF] Review of LEAF starts today : May 22 - May 31
by Michael Caisse 08 Jun '20

08 Jun '20

The Boost formal review of Emil Dotchevski's LEAF (Lightweight Error Augmentation Framework) library will take place from May 22 through May 31st. LEAF isn't just another error reporting library in the family of expected-like types. It provides a unique take on error handling which plays into usability, flexibility, and performance. Every software developer must deal with handling errors which makes this review relevant to all. Please participate! I will be grateful to receive a review based on whatever level of effort or time you can devote. LEAF is brought to us by Emil Dotchevski, the author of Boost.Exception. Similar to Boost.Exception, this library allows arbitrary error objects to be returned; however, unlike Boost.Exception it does not require dynamic memory. The library can be used with or without exception handling. The LEAF documentation highlights the following features: * Efficient delivery of arbitrary error objects to the correct error handling scope. * No dynamic memory allocations. * Compatible with std::error_code, errno and any other error code type. * Can be used with or without exception handling. * Support for multi-thread programming. "LEAF is designed with a strong bias towards the common use case where callers of functions which may fail check for success and forward errors up the call chain but do not handle them." LEAF offers a pattern matching facility to specify which errors to handle and how to handle them. Take a look at the 5-minute Introduction. <https://zajo.github.io/leaf/#introduction> You can find the source code to be reviewed here: <https://github.com/zajo/leaf/tree/review> You can find the documentation here: <https://zajo.github.io/leaf/> The documentation includes a tutorial, examples, reference, design rationale, and comparisons to other error handling approaches/libraries. There is a benchmark document also: <https://github.com/zajo/leaf/blob/master/benchmark/benchmark.md> and a whitepaper: <https://github.com/zajo/leaf/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including LEAF as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT). Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: <http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html> Thank you for your effort in the Boost community. Happy coding - michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com

14 42

[atomic] Bikeshedding over address-free waiting/notifying operation names
by Andrey Semashev 07 Jun '20

07 Jun '20

Hi, As some of you may know, C++20 added new waiting/notifying operations to std::atomic: wait, notify_one and notify_all. These operations are not address-free, i.e. their implementation is allowed to use process-local addresses of the atomics as keys. In particular, it means you can't use them for inter-process communication. In Boost.Atomic I intend to provide address-free variants as well, where possible, and I'm thinking about the naming scheme for them. Currently, I'm using the "_address_free" suffix, so we have wait_address_free, notify_one_address_free and notify_all_address_free. The "address-free" term comes from the C++ standard, but the resulting names seem a bit long. Maybe there are better suggestions? Thanks.

6 11