- Boost - lists.boost.org

b2 --layout=versioned compiler tag in library filename
by Paul Harris 06 May '19

06 May '19

Hi guys, In the past, b2 would build libraries named like so: libboost_atomic-gcc48-mt-d-1_60.so (note -gcc48-) I tried compiling Boost 1.66.0 (from boost-git) with gcc 8.3.0, but the library it generates is named: libboost_atomic-gcc-mt-d-x64-1_66.so (note the -gcc-) No compiler version number in the tag... I (and CMake) was expecting it to be named: libboost_atomic-gcc83-mt-d-x64-1_66.so (note the -gcc83-) To build, I did: ./bootstrap.sh --with-libraries="atomic" ./b2 --layout=versioned I then downloaded the 1.70.0 tarball and compiled that, and this time the result was: tar xfv boost_1_70_0.tar.bz2 cd boost_1_70_0/ ./bootstrap.sh --with-libraries="atomic" ./b2 --layout=versioned ls -l stage/lib libboost_atomic-gcc8-mt-d-x64-1_70.so I don't see any documentation around the compiler version tag, what is the current policy? thanks, Paul

5 7

[thread] compiler error gcc 7.3 on cygwin
by James E. King III 06 May '19

06 May '19

Getting an internal compiler error with gcc 7.3 but only on cygwin 64-bit. Jim@pulsar /cygdrive/c/boost/libs/thread $ ../../b2 --abbreviate-paths toolset=gcc cxxstd=11 define=_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L define=__USE_ISOC99 threadapi=pthread address-model=64 variant=release -q ... gcc.compile.c++ ../../bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_10963_c.test/gcc-7.3.0/rls/cxstd-11-iso/thrd-mlt/vsblt-hdn/test_10963_c.o In file included from ../../boost/thread/detail/invoker.hpp:30:0, from ../../boost/thread/future.hpp:31, from ../../libs/thread/test/test_10963.cpp:13: ../../boost/thread/detail/invoke.hpp: In function ‘decltype (*(forward<A0>)(boost::detail::invoke::a0).*boost::detail::invoke::f) boost::detail::invoke(Fp&&, A0&&) [with Fp = void (boost::executors::basic_thread_pool::*)(); A0 = boost::executors::basic_thread_pool*]’: ../../boost/thread/detail/invoke.hpp:102:43: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:12006 return (*boost::forward<A0>(a0)).*f; ^ Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. "g++" -std=c++11 -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -m64 -mthreads -O3 -finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall -pedantic -fvisibility=hidden -Wextra -Wno-long-long -Wno-unused-parameter -Wunused-function -pedantic -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_THREAD_THROW_IF_PRECONDITION_NOT_SATISFIED -DNDEBUG -D_POSIX_C_SOURCE=200112L -D__USE_ISOC99 -I"../.." -c -o "../../bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_10963_c.test/gcc-7.3.0/rls/cxstd-11-iso/thrd-mlt/vsblt-hdn/test_10963_c.o" "../../libs/thread/test/test_10963.cpp" ...failed gcc.compile.c++ ../../bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_10963_c.test/gcc-7.3.0/rls/cxstd-11-iso/thrd-mlt/vsblt-hdn/test_10963_c.o... If I change the C++ language level to 03 the problem goes away. I also cannot reproduce it on linux with the same version of compiler (but it probably isn't the exact same compiler code). Should I go ahead and file that gcc bug? - Jim

2 1

[boost-ci] Extended list of branches allowed to build
by Mateusz Loskot 03 May '19

03 May '19

Hi, This is to inform maintainers and contributors about little proposal I made to the common CI infrastructure maintained by James https://github.com/boostorg/boost-ci/pull/11 The comments should explain rationale behind extending the common naming convention to enable CI builds for topic branches (w/o changing branch filters in .travis.yml etc.). The PR has now been merged. I'd like to encourage mainainers who use the boost-ci setup to pull the update into the libraries. It may also be helpful to put a note in CONTRIBUTING.md or README.md to let contributors know that if they wish to test their contributions on their own CI accounts prior submitting it as PR, they should name their topic branches with prefixes: feature/*, fix/* or pr/* I hope this simple change to boost-ci would be adopted by across Boost libraries and make some contributors' life esier. "What would be great for one off contributors like me is if all CI scripts would support testing of feature branches in forked repositories by default." - from #boost at cpplang.slack.com Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Fingerprint=C081 EA1B 4AFB 7C19 38BA 9C88 928D 7C2A BB2A C1F2

1 0

[graph] Plans to upgrade algorithms with Boost.Parameter named arguments
by Cromwell Enage 03 May '19

03 May '19

Hello, everyone! With the most significant changes to Boost.Parameter now in both the 'master' and 'develop' branches, one of my next major goals is to prepare a pull request to incorporate Boost.Parameter named arguments into Boost.Graph algorithms that currently use bgl_named_params. My personal fork, <https://github.com/CromwellEnage/graph>, has a working version of such algorithms. However, I'd like your feedback on how to upgrade the corresponding documentation. I have a rough draft for documenting the Boost.Parameter-enabled A* algorithms here for your review: < https://github.com/CromwellEnage/graph/blob/develop/doc/astar_search.html>. Please suggest improvements or state if you are sufficiently satisfied with its current form to be able to use the A* algorithms with Boost.Parameter named arguments. I plan to use the same documentation style for the other affected algorithms. Regards, Cromwell D. Enage

1 0

[disjoint_sets] content moved into boostorg/graph
by James E. King III 02 May '19

02 May '19

The CMT was maintaining a standalone repository for one class, disjoint_sets, of which the only internal boost usage was in graph and graph_parallel (which depends on graph). disjoint_sets has been moved into boostorg/graph on develop. The superproject has a PR to remove it as a submodule, and the boostdep tools has a PR to remove it from an exclusion list. The path to the header has been preserved, so external usage will remain unaffected for those who download boost as a package, as disjoint_sets is header-only. If you experience any issues on develop relating to the header boost/pending/disjoint_sets.hpp, make sure you have the latest boostorg/graph, and you can manually remove libs/disjoint_sets from your sandbox, that should resolve it until the other PR in the superproject comes along. Even after that is merged, I'm not sure how the defunct disjoint_sets will be handled in sandboxes and may still need to be manually removed. There is no useful content in disjoint_sets at this point. I had experienced some complaints from b2 about being unable to link the header because it was coming from the old repository when I staged this change. Thanks, Jim

2 1

[variant] Heads-up!
by Antony Polukhin 02 May '19

02 May '19

Hi, I've merged a very cool optimization by Nikita Kniazev into the master branch. From now on boost::variant does pointer stealing for recursive variants. This significantly improves the performance of the variants move constructors. However if you use a variant variable after the std::move for anything except destruction and assignment then you're getting an UB. Beware! -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

9 25

Re: [boost] [variant] tests failing on master
by Nikita Kniazev 30 Apr '19

30 Apr '19

> boost.variant tests are failing on master. Whatever the bug is, it is also causing my signals2 tests that use variant to fail. Config needs develop to master merge to resolve the issue.

1 0

[variant] tests failing on master
by Frank Mori Hess 30 Apr '19

30 Apr '19

boost.variant tests are failing on master. Whatever the bug is, it is also causing my signals2 tests that use variant to fail. -- Frank

1 0

Re: [boost] [variant] Heads-up!
by Nikita Kniazev 29 Apr '19

29 Apr '19

There seems to be misunderstanding of what the thread is about. The short sum-up of the changes: Nothing changed for users that does not use recursive variant. The changes were applied mainly for recursive_wrapper, and affect recursive variant indirectly. The PR was proposed as a solution for two major recursive variant problems: * Move-only types support * Poor move performance (because of this one Spirit has its own variant) Most of the users are not affected by recursive_wrapper move constructor change. To hit it you have to visit (either directly, or with applying comparison operators) a recursive moved-out variant. > have to agree with Steven. Never empty guarantee is a crucial difference between Boost.Variant and std::variant. std::variant has no recursive variant support. In the common field nothing changed. See the comment above. > If the one negative is adding UB to valid existing code at the next point release, doesn't that outweigh any number of positive outcomes? I do not think there even a single user that visits moved-out variants. There is an assertation for such usage though. > Why wouldn't this be an opt-in strategy - this property of moves has been established for years now. Because it solves the bigger problems and for much more users that it potentially breaks.

2 2

[MP11] Loosing const-qualification on type result with GCC 4.8 only
by Mateusz Loskot 28 Apr '19

28 Apr '19

Hi, (initially posted to https://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2019/04/89778.php) I prepared a lenghty MWE which reproduces my problem with type manipulation using MP11 that for some reason looses const-qualification on a ::type result Here it is at https://godbolt.org/z/eCsakP and copied below. I hope the XXXXXX comments make sense and important static assertions in the main() at the bottom explain what is the expected result. ``` #include <boost/mp11.hpp> #include <cstdint> #include <type_traits> namespace mp11 = boost::mp11; template <typename BitField, int FirstBit, int NumBits, bool IsMutable> struct bit_range_reference { /* long definition, irrelevant */ }; template <typename BitField, typename FirstBit, typename NumBits> struct bit_range_reference_type { using type = bit_range_reference < BitField, FirstBit::value, NumBits::value, true > const; // XXXXXX Why this const gets lost with GCC 4.8 XXXXXX }; template <typename BitField, typename RangeBitSizes> class bit_range_reference_list { template <typename FirstBit, typename NumBits> using reference_type = typename bit_range_reference_type < BitField, FirstBit, NumBits >::type; // XXXXXX Should carry the const, shouldn't? GCC >4.8 do. // If RangeBitSizes is mp11::mp_list_c<int,7,7,2> // then first_bit_list will be mp11::mp_list_c<int,0,7,14,16> using first_bit_list = mp11::mp_fold_q < RangeBitSizes, mp11::mp_list<std::integral_constant<int, 0>>, mp11::mp_bind < mp11::mp_push_back, mp11::_1, mp11::mp_bind < mp11::mp_plus, mp11::mp_bind<mp11::mp_back, mp11::_1>, mp11::_2 > > >; static_assert(mp11::mp_at_c<first_bit_list, 0>::value == 0, "first bit must be 0"); public: using type = mp11::mp_transform < reference_type, mp11::mp_pop_back<first_bit_list>, RangeBitSizes >; }; using reference3_list = typename bit_range_reference_list < std::uint8_t, mp11::mp_list_c<int, 3> >::type; int main() { using r1_t = mp11::mp_at_c<reference3_list, 0>; using r2_t = bit_range_reference<std::uint8_t, 0, 3, true>; using r2c_t= bit_range_reference<std::uint8_t, 0, 3, true> const; //#if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ == 4) // GCC 4.8 compiles, later versions of GCC fail to compile static_assert(std::is_same<r1_t, r2_t>::value, "GCC says r1_t is const-qualified"); //#else // GCC 4.9, 5, 6, 7, 8 versions compile, GCC 4.8 fail to compile static_assert(std::is_same<r1_t, r2c_t>::value, "GCC says r1_t is NOT const-qualified"); //#endif } ``` To summary, I expect this to yield true: std::is_same < mp11::mp_at_c<reference3_list, 0> bit_range_reference<std::uint8_t, 0, 3, true> const > I got this confirmed by all GCC versions but GCC 4.8. (clang and MSVC also seem to agree with the GCC >= 4.9) Is mp11::mp_transform loosing const-qualification or have I made a mistake somewhere? I'm using Boost.MP11 from Boost 1.70 and from current develop branch Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

2 3