- Boost - lists.boost.org

Should include of quadmath.h in multiprecision/cpp_bin_float.hpp be guarded with ifdef BOOST_MATH_HAS_QUADMATH_H?
by Martin Jambor 19 Jul '24

19 Jul '24

Hello, because of a bug[1] in GCC 13 and earlier versions, the #include of quadmath.h in multiprecision/cpp_bin_float.hpp did not fail even when the header file was not present on the system and compilation succeeded as long as nothing from the header file was actually needed. The bug has been fixed in GCC 14 which all of a sudden leads to new build requirements and failures such as [2]. Examining this build failure, I noticed that in math/special_functions/fpclassify.hpp (which is indirectly included from multiprecision/cpp_bin_float.hpp) the existence of the header file is specifically tested and macro BOOST_MATH_HAS_QUADMATH_H is defined or not accordingly. So I wanted to ask the question in the $subject. Could, or perhaps even should the include (together with its uses introduced in commit 4911125248bd) be guarded also by BOOST_MATH_HAS_QUADMATH_H and not just by BOOST_HAS_FLOAT128? Thank you, Martin [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80753 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1225861#c7

2 1

Boost Foundation, Boost, and the Beman Project
by Peter Dimov 19 Jul '24

19 Jul '24

Hi all, I recently brought up (by e-mail) the subject of the relationship between the Boost Foundation and the Beman Project before the BF board. I expressed the opinion that, since the Boost Foundation's primary purpose is to support Boost, the Beman Project should eventually have its own backing entity (foundation/nonprofit), instead of the existing Boost Foundation supporting both. David Sankel responded, quoted Boost Foundation's mission statement: "The Boost Foundation’s broad C++ mission is: (a) development of high quality, expert reviewed, legally unencumbered, open-source libraries, (b) inspiring standard enhancements, and (c) advancing and disseminating software development best practices. It does this by fostering community engagement, nurturing leaders, providing necessary financial/legal support, and making directional decisions in the event of Boost community deadlock." and helpfully pointed out that it very much doesn't say that supporting Boost is the primary purpose of the Foundation. And indeed, if one pays attention to the above, one would notice that Boost only appears once, at the end, somewhat incidentally, and as an afterthought. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. I think that the primary purpose of an entity named "the Boost Foundation" should be to support Boost, and if it currently isn't, something not quite right. At the moment I'm not proposing anything yet; this is purely informative. But no matter how I look at it, I see a pretty fundamental difference of opinion, which we'll need to deal with at some point.

12 32

Re: [boost] Boost Digest, Vol 7285, Issue 2
by Adam Getchell 19 Jul '24

19 Jul '24

> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:38:58 -0700 > From: Vinnie Falco <vinnie.falco(a)gmail.com> > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Cc: Robert Ramey <ramey(a)rrsd.com> > Subject: Re: [boost] New Logo Discussion > Message-ID: > <CA+EzHGfmxMdhD04BCYz4Rvzk663KejBa+8QDF1fX84ZW1A3Ytg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:42?PM Robert Ramey via Boost < > boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > >> FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community >> inclusive process with many submissions and designs. >> > > Thanks. Upon reviewing my initial post I think I could have communicated > more clearly. Will everyone please vote on one of the following two options: > > 1. Boost adopts the proposed new logo with Alliance as custodian of the > trademark > > 2. No change I’m not sure I’m a voting member, but I like the new logo. Thanks also for doing all the legal review stuff. -- Adam Getchell https://adamgetchell.org <https://adamgetchell.org/>

2 1

Re: [boost] New Logo Discussion
by Joel de Guzman 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

On 7/18/24 9:36 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 6:50 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost > <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >> On 7/18/24 3:49 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost >>> <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: >>>> On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: >>>>> Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting >>>>> people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing >>>>> this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You >>>>> can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress): >>>>> >>>>> https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf >>>>> >>>> FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community >>>> inclusive process with many submissions and designs. >>> It wasn't. The logo picked by the community in that process was never >>> used. What is currently used was the result of private design between >>> the Boost Steering Committee and the artist that "won" that logo >>> contest. >> That is not correct. I was one of the major proponents of that logo contest (if not >> spearheded it). >> And I am not a member of the Boost Steering Committee. That contest was public and was >> discussed in the Boost list. It is NOT a private design. >> >> Here's part of the discussion (I do not have time to search all): >> https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2005/03/81416.php >> >> You can see clearly I was asking for votes. > I did not claim the logo contest was not community driven and resulted > in a community choice. I would know, as I submitted 11 designs in that > context. What I claimed is that the **current** logo was not chosen by > a community process. As the **current** logo was NOT the winning logo. > The winning logo (actually four) was a single, or trio, of stacked > cards (see attached). And as you can see it is very different from > what we have now. I am confused. The winning logo is the beehive design by Zoltan Juhasz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boost.png I should know, I tallied the votes. I have no idea what that design you attached is. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman Cycfi Research, Inc.

3 3

Re: [boost] New Logo Discussion
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:36 PM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 6:50 PM Joel de Guzman via Boost > <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > > > On 7/18/24 3:49 AM, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via Boost wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 2:42 PM Robert Ramey via Boost > > > <boost(a)lists.boost.org> wrote: > > >> On 7/17/24 11:59 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote: > > >>> Hi. It is CppCon 2024 season, and the C++ Alliance is working on letting > > >>> people know all the new and exciting things happening in Boost. We're doing > > >>> this with Boost labeled conference shirts, and a beautiful brochure. You > > >>> can see a draft of this promotional piece here (note: work in progress): > > >>> > > >>> https://cppalliance.org/pdf/Boost-Brochure-CppCon-2024.pdf > > >>> > > >> FWIW - I much prefer the current logo which was developed by community > > >> inclusive process with many submissions and designs. > > > It wasn't. The logo picked by the community in that process was never > > > used. What is currently used was the result of private design between > > > the Boost Steering Committee and the artist that "won" that logo > > > contest. > > > That is not correct. I was one of the major proponents of that logo contest (if not > > spearheded it). > > And I am not a member of the Boost Steering Committee. That contest was public and was > > discussed in the Boost list. It is NOT a private design. > > > > Here's part of the discussion (I do not have time to search all): > > https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost//2005/03/81416.php > > > > You can see clearly I was asking for votes. > > I did not claim the logo contest was not community driven and resulted > in a community choice. I would know, as I submitted 11 designs in that > context. What I claimed is that the **current** logo was not chosen by > a community process. As the **current** logo was NOT the winning logo. > The winning logo (actually four) was a single, or trio, of stacked > cards (see attached). And as you can see it is very different from > what we have now. Trying this again because the attachment was too big. :-( See pair of individual images. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

1 0

Where is Boost.Parser?
by Vinnie Falco 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

Boost.Parser was accepted on February 28th but it is not in the superproject, and the last commit in the source repository is from four months ago. I am developing a Boost brochure for CppCon 2024 and I'd like to go to press with Boost.Parser as a listed library, so this is a blocker. Thanks

3 5

Rephrased: Building Boost for MacOS / clang
by Stephen Greenfield 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 Richard Hodges wrote: > This usually happens because you're compiling with one standard library > (e.g. libc++, the default on clang) while your boost libraries were > compiled with another (e.g. libstdc++, the default on gcc). I've recompiled my MacOS program for GCC (GNU C++17) and linked with libstdc++ to be compatible with the default build of Boost. Your suggestion WAS the solution to my reported slew of error messages. Thanks! QUESTION 1: But for building a standard MacOS or iPhone/iPad app, shouldn't I be building both my app and Boost for clang, so I can link with libc++? When I looked at the list of toolsets in the "getting started with unix variants", included with the 1_85_0 .zip package, there was no listing for toolset=clang or toolset=clang-darwin. Nor is there any mention of clang on: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_85_0/more/getting_started/unix-variants.ht… QUESTION 2: So what is the proper toolset / build instructions to build for MacOS using the clang C++17 compiler? Stephen

1 0

A question for folks here
by David Sankel 16 Jul '24

16 Jul '24

For those who got involved in Boost within the last couple years, how did you hear about boost? What attracted you to it? For those who have been around for a while, what keeps you here? Why do you stay engaged?

16 25

[unordered] New natvis visualizations + accompanying article
by Braden Ganetsky 16 Jul '24

16 Jul '24

Hi everyone, This is my first message on the ML. I've written visualizations in the Visual Studio Natvis framework for the Boost.Unordered containers and iterators. This will improve the user experience for anyone using Visual Studio. The visualizations mirror those of the STL unordered containers as closely as possible, except that end iterators display as "{ end iterator }" instead of the visualization just breaking. Here is the file: https://github.com/boostorg/unordered/blob/develop/extra/boost_unordered.na… I've written an accompanying article about the natvis implementation for the closed-addressing containers. I will be writing a second article about the implementation for the open-addressing containers. This first article contains some tips and tricks for using the natvis framework that I wish I knew before going into this, especially about using "<Intrinsic>" elements. Hopefully it can help someone else. Link to the article: https://blog.ganets.ky/NatvisForUnordered/ Custom gdb pretty-printers will be next up. Thank you to Joaquín for reviewing the code and the article. Thanks all, Braden Ganetsky

2 2

Re: [boost] Boost Digest, Vol 7279, Issue 2
by Stephen Greenfield 15 Jul '24

15 Jul '24

BUMP / RE-SENT -- I think I got lost in a flurry of responses to another subject: Richard – > This usually happens because you're compiling with one standard library > (e.g. libc++, the default on clang) while your boost libraries were > compiled with another (e.g. libstdc++, the default on gcc). That makes sense. Does my MacOS program need to be compiled for GCC (IE GNU C++17 / GNU C++20), and then linked with libstdc++ to be compatible with the default build of Boost, or the opposite: build Boost and link with libc++? I saw that there's a list of toolsets, but in the "getting started with unix variants", included with the 1_85_0 .zip package, there is no listing for toolset=clang or toolset=clang-darwin. Nor is there any mention of clang on: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_85_0/more/getting_started/unix-variants.ht… Stephen

1 0