July 2020 - Boost - lists.boost.org

Boost.Beast state of play
by Richard Hodges 06 Jul '20

06 Jul '20

Dear all, As you know, Boost.Beast has a strong dependency on Boost.Asio. At the present time, Chris is working to finalise some significant changes to Asio. These changes have required some refactoring of Boost.Beast at short notice in order to continue to provide a functioning library. Boost.Asio has two significant customisation macros: BOOST_ASIO_NO_DEPRECATED and BOOST_ASIO_NO_TS_EXECTORS. The 1.74 release of Asio deprecates some classes and interfaces relevant to net.ts-style executors. In addition, it introduces execution-style executors. *There is no combination of the above flags (save for none of them) that will allow an unmodified dependent library or program to compile as of boost.asio 1.74.* As of this moment, Beast is correctly compiling all examples and passing all tests with the exception of tests relevant to c++20 coroutines, where the latest Asio commit on develop branch has one (it would appear) remaining bug. Chris has been contacted and we are awaiting a fix. Once I have this, I will be in a position to rebase Beast PR1999 onto develop/master in readiness for the 1.74. Thank you for bearing with me during my time as an unwilling hostage to fortune. -- Richard Hodges hodges.r(a)gmail.com office: +442032898513 home: +376841522 mobile: +376380212

12 23

Fixed Boost.CallableTraits is_invocable_v
by Barrett Adair 03 Jul '20

03 Jul '20

It was recently brought to my attention that the variable template version of boost::callable_traits::is_invocable was always broken. A fix has been merged to match the non-variable version of the trait. I This is a minor change. Can this be included in 1.74? https://github.com/boostorg/callable_traits/commit/6da8b5a9b8b439f8e751191a…

2 1

[thread] Release critical bug (optimized away hooks)
by Nikita Kniazev 02 Jul '20

02 Jul '20

I am informing release managers that there is a severe bug in Boost.Thread that will affect static library users built with MSVC in the next release. The bug report: https://github.com/boostorg/thread/issues/316 (TLDR: thread_specific_ptr data destructor is not called in non-Boost.Thread threads) I have opened a PR that fixes the issue https://github.com/boostorg/thread/pull/320, but got no response in weeks.

2 1

How good to use dynamic_bitset?
by Jupiter 02 Jul '20

02 Jul '20

Hi, I am working on an embedded system where I read hardware 32-bit register values represented variables in bits. Currently I am using bit shift to extract values, it is too vague to represent variables. I have been thinking to make overhaul of using dynamic bitset, is it a good idea or bad idea? Thank you. Kind regards, jupiter -- "A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else." -- John Burroughs

3 4

Boost, not LEWG
by Glen Fernandes 01 Jul '20

01 Jul '20

(A new subject, since the thread has evolved past the Text review result). I spend part of my time in the C++ standards committee. I spend part of my time in Boost. I would prefer that my time spent in Boost, and that Boost itself, be focused on its goals of serving the C++ community and Boost users (existing ones, and growing to new ones). If there is benefit of Boost to any other entity, be it the LEWG of the committee, or some organization, that's great. i.e. When Boost is adopted by some organization, or when Boost components go into the standard, that's just a bonus. But Boost itself shouldn't compromise on quality - in its review process or what it ships in a Boost distribution, to serve any of those other interests. Putting a bunch of experimental libraries into a Boost release just because people have proposed them for standardization is not something we should do. If someone wants to, they can should just start their own project full of libraries that have not undergone any kind of formal review, and convince OS distributions to start including that as part of their packages based on its own merits. In case there was any misunderstanding on this point: Zach's goals of standardization are his own, and in Boost we don't have to be concerned with them. Because we're not changing the review process because of them, and he's not asking us to. Glen

16 40