- Boost - lists.boost.org

[asio] Generating docs from trunk drops reference links
by Mateusz Loskot 09 Mar '10

09 Mar '10

Hi, I'm generating HTML docs for Boost.Asio from sources in SVN trunk (r60372) and I've noticed that all elements in Core -> Free Functions section of the Reference are not linked (Core, second column from left) So, all the links in this box point to HTML docs root directory file:///home/mloskot/dev/boost/_svn/trunk/libs/asio/doc/html/ However, the docs on website for Asio in Boost 1.42 does look correct: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference.html While generating, Boostbook (or Quickbook) does report this problem as follows: Error: no ID for constraint linkend: boost_asio.reference.read. Error: no ID for constraint linkend: boost_asio.reference.write. ... I'm generating the docs by executing sequence of two commands: mloskot@dog:~/dev/boost/_svn/trunk/libs/asio/doc$ perl doxy2qbk.pl mloskot@dog:~/dev/boost/_svn/trunk/libs/asio/doc$ bjam --v2 I attached boost-asio-docs-gen-log.txt.zip with .txt file which contains complete output of these two commands. I'm working on Linux Ubuntu 9.10 (64-bit) with the tools of versions: $ doxygen --version 1.6.1 $ bjam --version Boost.Build V2 (Milestone 12) Boost.Jam 03.1.18 $ quickbook --version Quickbook Version 1.5 Am I doing anything wrong or missing any step or Asio docs generator has changed after 1.42? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

1 0

Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
by Brian Wood 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Joachim Faulhaber writes: >2010/3/7 Brian Wood <woodbrian77(a)gmail.com>: >> I was being blunt in order to let you know where I stand. >> I think the ITL is an interesting library and we may add >> marshalling support for it at some point. ? My suggestion >> is to not use the exact same class names in your library >> as are already used in the standard library. ? With the >> Boost::Intrusive library there is some of that as well. >> However, he has a class called ?rbtree that is an >> alternative to intrusive::(set and multiset). ?That rbtree >> class I support while for the time being I don't support >> the intrusive set or multiset. ? ?I'm not familiar enough >> with your library to know if an itl_rbtree class would be >> workable, but mention it just in case. > > Why not just support the class templates with the names that you like > and just ignoring the rest? I may do that. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on the itl_rbtree idea. Brian Wood http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384

1 0

Boost.Atomic on OSX Leopard, x86-32?
by Josh Faust 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hey all, I'm having some trouble getting Boost.Atomic working properly on OSX Leopard. After wrangling compilation (all instances of "lock" -> "lock;", and "+r" -> "+q"), I'm hitting what looks like bad generated assembly. The following code, compiled with -O2: #include <boost/atomic.hpp> #include <stdio.h> using namespace boost; int main() { signed char a1, c1; char a2, c2; { atomic<char> a(41); char c = a++; a1 = a.load(); c1 = c; } { atomic<signed char> a(41); signed char c = a++; a2 = a.load(); c2 = c; } printf("%d %d\n", a1, c1); printf("%d %d\n", a2, c2); } produces: Macintosh-2:test josh$ ./simple2 42 41 93 41 Changing the first atomic to be the same type as the second (atomic<signed char>) produces the correct output (42 41 for both). This same problem shows up with int vs. unsigned int as well (have only tested those two). The assembly that produces the correct output: LCFI2: movl $1, %ecx ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Move 1 into ecx movl %esp, %ebp LCFI3: movl %ecx, %eax ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And eax subl $72, %esp LCFI4: movl %ebx, -12(%ebp) LCFI5: movl %esi, -8(%ebp) LCFI6: movl %edi, -4(%ebp) LCFI7: call L11 "L00000000001$pb": L11: popl %ebx movb $41, -25(%ebp) lock; xaddb %al, -25(%ebp) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ first reference after assignment to eax (through al) movzbl -25(%ebp), %edx lock; addl $0, (%esp) movb $41, -25(%ebp) lock; xaddb %cl, -25(%ebp) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ first reference after assignment to ecx (through cl) movl %ecx, %edi movzbl -25(%ebp), %ecx movb %cl, -41(%ebp) lock; addl $0, (%esp) The assembly that produces the incorrect output (when one is atomic<char> and the other is atomic<signed char>): movl $1, %eax ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Move 1 into eax movl %esp, %ebp LCFI3: subl $72, %esp LCFI4: movl %ebx, -12(%ebp) LCFI5: movl %esi, -8(%ebp) LCFI6: movl %edi, -4(%ebp) LCFI7: call L11 "L00000000001$pb": L11: popl %ebx movb $41, -25(%ebp) lock; xaddb %al, -25(%ebp) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ First reference after assignment to eax (through al) movzbl -25(%ebp), %edx lock; addl $0, (%esp) movb $41, -25(%ebp) lock; xaddb %cl, -25(%ebp) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ First reference to ecx (through cl), but NO ASSIGNMENT. cl is garbage? movl %ecx, %edi movzbl -25(%ebp), %ecx movb %cl, -41(%ebp) lock; addl $0, (%esp) I am by no means an assembly expert (this has been a huge learning experience in fact) but this doesn't look right. I'm on: gcc version 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5493) OSX 10.5.8, Intel Core 2 Duo (2.16 GHz) Just pulled a git clone of Boost.Atomic from http://git.chaoticmind.net/boost.atomic, rev. 886a675aa982ab5875c7bc98697b2eb26c134d03 (I think... I have no experience with git, just grabbed the top guid from "git log"). building without -O2 yields correct results. Anyone with more knowledge than I have any ideas? Am I being stupid and something else is wrong? Josh

2 4

Re: [boost] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
by Brian Wood 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Joachim Faulhaber writes: >2010/3/7 Brian Wood <woodbrian77(a)gmail.com>: >> Joachim Faulhaber writes: >> > >> If you stick >> with the names of some of the classes that you have today, >> at the very least, I'll put off developing marshalling support for >> the library. > >To give you a little feed back: The sentence above didn't exactly make >me feel in peace with you ;-/ But I'm open for your suggestions. I was being blunt in order to let you know where I stand. I think the ITL is an interesting library and we may add marshalling support for it at some point. My suggestion is to not use the exact same class names in your library as are already used in the standard library. With the Boost::Intrusive library there is some of that as well. However, he has a class called rbtree that is an alternative to intrusive::(set and multiset). That rbtree class I support while for the time being I don't support the intrusive set or multiset. I'm not familiar enough with your library to know if an itl_rbtree class would be workable, but mention it just in case. Regards, Brian Wood http://webEbenezer.net (651) 251-9384

2 1

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Review] ITL review starts today, February 18th
by Joachim Faulhaber 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hi Jeff, thank you for your review of the ITL. You have been supportive in the course of the development at different points giving feed back about shortcomings and helping with code patches and useful suggestions. I am glad to hear that you are actually using the library for real world applications already. 2010/3/8 Jeff Flinn <TriumphSprint2000(a)hotmail.com>: >> Please always state in your review, whether you think the library should >> be >> accepted as a Boost library. > > Yes, I think the library (with the interface improvements brought out during > the review) should be accepted into boost. I've already successfully used > the library with it's existing interface in a commercial product. > >> - What is your evaluation of the design? > > As brought up during the course of the review period my main concerns for > the library's interface are: > > 1) the bloated size of the interval class with it's dynamic bound data > member. This is being addressed by Joachim providing an interface to allow > use of static bound interval classes. > > 2) the fat interface on the interval class. In my view the myriad of > mutators would best be replaced with free functions in terms of the > interval's extents and return a interval passing the calculated extents to > an interval constructor which enforces the interval's invariant(s). There > should also be a method to construct an interval given unordered extents > that effectively does interval(min(arg1, arg2), max(arg1, arg2)). > > 3) better integration of std and user defined data types en lieu of itl's > specific types. Joachim has agreed to improvements in this area. I think we have agreed in the various points involved. > 4) I'd also like to see std::inserter "just work" with the containers. I discovered that it does not just work, because for std::insert_iterator there is an invariant involved that expects the inserted to be a non empty element of the container, that the element is inserted into. This invariant is broken with interval containers because an interval/segment is not an element of an interval container. > I shouldn't have to expect to look for the itl specific adder to do this. This > was the most common usage my applications had for populating interval > containers using std::copy/transform from my applications existing data > structures. > >> - What is your evaluation of the implementation? > > Seems adequate. I was able to port to the portions I needed to CodeWarrior > 9.4 (from 2003?). IIRC, Joachim integrated the changes(simplifications) that > allowed itl to work in this environment. I added all the changes suggested, but I remember that important parts of the code, itl global operators in particular, still did not compile with CW. I tried to set up CW myself, but encountered too many problems and gave up :( > Performance for the scale of problems I've been dealing with were fine, but > as has been discussed scaling to larger sizes of millions of items may > require some specialized containers. I don't see this as a problem, it's > analogous to std::map and std::unordered_map. I share this view. > Hmm, It just occurs to me that for my application I could void the N^2 size > issue of a split_interval_map<int, set<> > with a non_combining_map<int, > data> that allowed me to iterate through all items that overlap with an > arbitrary interval in and ordered fashion. That's not much different from a > std::map<interval, data>, but with some more interval specific wrapping of > the upper/lower_bound/equal_range methods. > >> - What is your evaluation of the documentation? > > I was able to get up and running fairly quickly. As discussed some of the > colorful terminology got in the way rather than helping. Also I had expected > to just be able to populate with std::inserter, and had trouble finding docs > related to this. The example for copy/transform helped, but even during this > review I have trouble finding the docs for itl::adder/inserter. True, escaped my notice. Has to be added. >> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? > > Very, I've come across needs for this capability in 3 different jobs in 3 > very different industries. I've had domain specific solutions and was > looking to create just such a generic library when Joachim submitted his > library. That's interesting. I had the basic ideas and first implementation in 1999 / 2000 and I had the immediate impression that it should be made available to the public domain. But due to other projects and commercial copyright of the first version, I did not have the opportunity to make it open source for years. I always thought someone else would be faster than me ;) >> - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any >> problems? > > Yes, the library is being used in a commercial application built with > CodeWarrior 9.4 on Mac/Windows and with VC8 and XCode 3.x. The library > required some modifications to the template declarations for CodeWarrior. Is it now fully or still only partially compilable with CW? >> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick >> reading? In-depth study? > > I read through the documentation, integrated the library with production > code, dug through compilation error messages and headers on CodeWarrior to > port a portion of the library. I've profiled code using itl to understand > performance implications. > >> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? > > Yes, I've designed/implemented/optimized integral open-closed Interval and > IntervalSet classes for use in previous projects. Thanks again for your review and the support that you provided for the ITL library. Cheers, Joachim

1 0

[program_options]
by Thorsten Ottosen 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hi, I tried using bpo::options_description desc("Allowed options"); desc.add_options() (HELP, "produce help message"); but this fails to compile because HELP is an std::string. Isn't that a bit too restrictive? -Thorsten

9 14

is review system in place is extremely slow? (was Re: [rfc] rcpp)
by vicente.botet 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mathias Gaunard" <mathias.gaunard(a)ens-lyon.org> To: <boost(a)lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [rfc] rcpp > > Ivan Sorokin wrote: >> 3 When will Boost.Move become a part of boost? > > When it gets reviewed. > It could be said, however, that the review system in place is extremely > slow and that it's going to take years (literally). Why do you think the review system in place is extremely slow? Currently there are a lot of libraries to review, but no review managers. That means that the user community don't want to spend a little bit of their time to manage a review. In addition, the last review didn't had too much of reviewers (I'm also concerned by this point) I'm the review manager of Boost.Task but the library is not ready for review, because now Boost.Task depends on Boost.Move, Boost.Fiber and Boost.Atomic (which is not yet on the review queue). Maybe the review withards could add this on the schedule page. What do you propose to improve it? Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá

32 87

Cooperative Multi-Tasking
by Daniel Larimer 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

I am curious whether anyone here has experience with any cross-platform cooperative multi-tasking libraries? I am familiar with the Boost.Coroutine library, but it only provides the "primitives" or "threads". What I am looking for is something much higher level that hides all of the coroutine details behind a asynchronous function call / future API. Something along the line of ASIO for coroutines. I am guessing that Boost.Asio would benefit from such a library. It seems obvious to me now that coroutines / cooperative multi-tasking is the superior approach to solving problems with a large number of actors and "locks" where heavy weight preemptive scheduling would bog down the system. Considering that cooperative multitasking is a very old concept, are there any reasons why there are no obvious libraries / scheduling systems in place? Does everyone "roll their own" or do they avoid it for some other reason? Dan

9 20

[Tokenmap] A (perfect) hash container library chcked-in to sandbox (RFC)
by Slawomir Lisznianski 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/tokenmap/libs/tokenmap/doc/html/inde… A tokenmap is a data structure that uniquely maps pseudo-random generated keys with elements of the collection. Boost.Tokenmap is a (perfect) hash container library for C++. An important distinction between tokenmap and other dictionary-like containers, such as std::map or Boost.Unordered, is that tokenmap generates keys internally (referred to as "tokens") rather than relying on user to provide them. Specifically, when a new element is inserted into the tokenmap, an apparently random key is returned back to the caller which uniquely maps to the stored element. The returned key can later be used in a very efficient lookup. Although the code and documentation are far from complete, the implementation in the repo is functional and hopefully serves as a basis for further work. Slawomir

9 27

[Itl] Review
by Phil Endecott 08 Mar '10

08 Mar '10

My review of the proposed Interval Template Library follows. This is based only on studying the documentation, and previous discussion of the library on the Boost mailing list (e.g. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/03/149396.php ). Joachim has clearly put a lot of work into what is a substantial and well-documented library. Unfortunately, it seems to me that it is built on a weak foundation. One of the most well-known problems involving intervals is to determine which of a given set of intervals contains a particular point. How to store a set of intervals in such a way as to make this problem efficient has been extensively studied. If an "interval tree" (See e.g. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_tree) is used, then the problem can be answered in logarithmic time and linear space. (More precisely: if there are N intervals in the container and M overlap the point of interest, finding them should take O(M + log N) time and the data structure should take O(N) space.) I was hoping to find that this library was an implementation of an interval tree. But it is not: it is built on top of normal standard-library containers. The implementation used can find the intervals that overlap a point in O(M + log N) time, but to do so it needs worst-case O(N^2) space and I think it needs O(N^2 log N) time to build that structure. Presumably this complexity is not an issue in Joachim's application. Unfortunately, library code will be used in many different applications including those where optimal complexity is required. For example, consider trying to store the lifespans of people in a genealogy program: recording a few thousand people living over a few hundred years would approach the worse-case space complexity and need megabytes of storage. Perhaps other reviewers will feel that there are sufficient applications where this library is suitable to justify its inclusion in Boost. My feeling is that since the interval tree data structure is so well known and its performance is so much better, we should not accept this library. Ideally it would be possible for Joachim to replace ITL's current standard containers with an interval tree implementation. Could an interval tree be implemented with an interval sufficiently similar to a std::set/map to make that possible, without losing the complexity benefits? Once again, I believe that apart from this weak foundation this looks like an excellent submission that is comprehensive and well-documented. Regards, Phil.

3 9