- Boost - lists.boost.org

Help with VeecoFTC - exception - cloning_test / msvc-9.0~wm5~stlport5.2
by Emil Dotchevski 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Can someone help me figure out what's going on here: http://tinyurl.com/ybpbsp4 Thanks! Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode

3 5

callback or file based construction of CSR graph
by Dan Jiang 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Is there any way for CSR graph to provide a constructor that takes a file stream pointer or a callback functor? If not, how hard is it to add it? I am using edges_are_sorted CSR constuctor. It doubles memory I passed in during constructor calls. My graph is huge (>30 million arcs) and It took >8gb ram to construct my CSR. If I can have callback or file-based construction, I could cut down the memory usage by half. Dan _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail & Messenger. Get them on your phone now. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724463

2 2

(no subject)
by Dan Jiang 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Is there any way for CSR graph to provide a constructor that takes a file stream pointer or a callback functor? If not, how hard is it to add it? I am using edges_are_sorted CSR constuctor. It doubles memory I passed in during constructor calls. My graph is huge (>30 million arcs) and It took >8gb ram to construct my CSR. If I can have callback or file-based construction, I could cut down the memory usage by half. Dan _________________________________________________________________ Videos that have everyone talking! Now also in HD! http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9724465

1 0

[1.43.0] File version.hpp in release branch still says V1.42
by Hartmut Kaiser 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Go figure ... Regards Hartmut --------------- Meet me at BoostCon www.boostcon.com

2 1

[1.43.0] Beta 1 now available from SourceForge
by Beman Dawes 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Boost release 1.43.0 beta 1 is now available from SourceForge See http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/ For details of what's in the release, see http://beta.boost.org/users/news/version_1_43_0. Note that the links to files on this web page are for the final release - use the SourceForge link above to get the beta files. There are known issues with GCC 4.5 and VC++ 2010. These compilers were released a few weeks ago so support is still rough around the edges. Some fixes will make it into the final 1.43.0 release, but full support will not be available until 1.44.0. Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter here. -- The Boost Release Team

3 4

[type_traits] what a about a trait that allows memcpy provided that destructors are not called?
by Thorsten Ottosen 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Hi All, I'm looking into writing a boost::malloc_allocator<T> class. This allocator can also reallocate memory in-place via call's to realloc() which can be a benefit for vector-implementation and all it's functions that grow or shrink the vector. However, it is normally only safe to call memcpy() for objects with a trivial assignment operator. But we may also safely relocate a much larger set of classes, e.g. boost::shared_ptr<T> or std::vector<T>. At first I thought a trait like has_trivial_move_constructor<T> would be enough, but that seems to rule out e.g. smart pointers. The compiler can probably not detect this property, so what about a trait like template< class T > struct is_reallocable; Thoughts? -Thorsten

1 0

[1.43][beta] Fix for MPL under gcc 4.5
by joel falcou 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Can : https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4061 be fixed by merging the attached trivial patch ? gcc 4.5 borks up on a deep MPL internals that prevent some other component to not compile. Thanks -- ___________________________________________ Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35

16 30

[Serialization] Assertion when registering same type from different modules, release branch broken?
by Hartmut Kaiser 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Hi, In the newest version of the serialization library (trunk) I'm seeing assertions in file void_cast.cpp, line 227 during application startup. The reason appears to be that the same type gets registered for serialization from different modules (shared libraries). The very same code worked for us before (and still works for V1.42). I did not check with the release candidate yet, but a comparison of the file void_cast.cpp in trunk and release branch lets me assume the error is there as well (both files are identical). I will try to recompile everything on the release branch over the weekend. If the same behavior shows up in the release branch I'd consider the serialization library seriously broken. The problem is, that I really don't know how to avoid this multiple registration from different modules as the type in question is defined in a header file (no EXPORT macro) which is being used from different modules. I don't think this is something really special. Any ideas what we could do? What's the rationale of changing the registration behavior in the serialization library? Regards Hartmut --------------- Meet me at BoostCon www.boostcon.com

1 0

Request to merge r61245 into release branch
by Jeremiah Willcock 23 Apr '10

23 Apr '10

Is it too late for this one? It fixes one warning (class vs. struct) and several errors for VC++ 10 (ambiguous begin and end calls). -- Jeremiah Willcock

2 1

[range] Merge to fix defects
by Neil Groves 23 Apr '10

23 Apr '10

Boosters, I have had a commit on the trunk to resolve some defects that I noticed by carefully reviewing all of my new code. There is one serious defect in the istream_range which on the release branch is useless. Of course, this is merely a lack of a new feature rather than a regression but I would like to have it working for the proper release. There are also some changes to return types to address the concern brought up in the review about inconsistent return types of various functions. Both of these fixes have been tested on the trunk for many days. I recently reverted a host of other changes on the trunk that are unrelated to these issues that would increase risk. The recently reduced changeset on the trunk is also passing regression tests. Thanks in anticipation, Neil Groves

2 3