- Boost - lists.boost.org

Another website docpage nit
by Jonathan Biggar 28 Aug '08

28 Aug '08

In the page: http://www.boost.org/doc/tools.html the description of Wave says: A Standards conformant C/C++ preprocessor usable on top of any other compiler. Usable for instance for the debugging of the expansion of macros in your code or as a replacement for your build in preprocessor. ^^^^^^ built- -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon(a)floorboard.com jon(a)biggar.org

2 1

[smart_ptr] release()
by Phil Bouchard 28 Aug '08

28 Aug '08

As it turns out I think a release() member function should be added to the smart pointer. Its purpose is to give away ownership of the object. See the following pseudo-code: template <typename T> class smart_ptr { ... smart_ptr(element_type *); value_type * get(); element_type * release() { element_type * __p = pointer_ref(); pointer_ref() = 0; if (-- counter_ref()) return 0; else return __p; } }; It follows the same idea of its predecessor auto_ptr<> but will return a null pointer if the object is still shared thus not ready to be deleted. This way the allocator will be much easier to support either by calling this function before deallocate(), inside it or by using a specialized wrapper class to handle it: template <typename T> class allocator { ... typedef smart_ptr<T> pointer; void deallocate(pointer & __p) { delete p.release(); } }; -Phil

1 0

Website documentation page nit
by Jonathan Biggar 28 Aug '08

28 Aug '08

The docuemntation page on the website: http://www.boost.org/doc/ only has two subbullets (Boost Jam and Boost Build) under the "Tools" bullet. But if you click on the Tools bullet, you get a longer list: Boost.Build Boost.Jam Regression Inspect BoostBook bcp QuickBook Wave Shouldn't those all appear on the doc page. It took me a while to find the BoostBook documentation because of this. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon(a)floorboard.com jon(a)biggar.org

1 0

[next release] Any new libraries ready for the next release?
by Beman Dawes 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Will any new libraries be ready to go in the next release? --Beman

10 17

[Boost][spirit] Broken nightly tests
by K. Noel Belcourt 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Hi, The nightly tests are dying with the error from, apparently, the spirit library. Please refer to the Boost.Regex documentation for more information (don't panic: this is a strictly optional feature). error: Unable to find file or target named error: 'qi/confix.cpp' error: referred from project at error: '../libs/spirit/test' Thanks. -- Noel Belcourt

2 1

[filesystem] Boost 1.36 issue on Win64
by Noman_Khan＠elixir.com 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Hi all I am trying to use Boost library on 64 bit windows and it is crashing whenever i call a boost function. I am using boost 1.36 with VS2008 and i have used the bellow line to compile boost's 64 bit version. bjam debug release threading=multi --toolset=msvc-9.0 architecture=x86 address-model=64 I am using BOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK preprocessor to link to boost. It crashes after saying that heap may be corrupted. Also it works fine if compiled for 32 bit windows. Here is a sample code that replicates the issue: /********************************************/ #include "boost/filesystem.hpp" int wmain(int argc, wchar_t* argv[]) { wchar_t path[] = L"c:/temp/test"; if(boost::filesystem::exists(path) ) { printf("Path exists.\n"); } else { printf("Path does not exists.\n"); } return 0; } /********************************************/ Here is the call stack at the time of the crash. > msvcr90d.dll!_CrtIsValidHeapPointer(const void * pUserData=0x00000000005e9780) Line 2103 C++ msvcr90d.dll!_free_dbg_nolock(void * pUserData=0x00000000005e9780, int nBlockUse=1) Line 1317 + 0xa bytes C++ msvcr90d.dll!_free_dbg(void * pUserData=0x00000000005e9780, int nBlockUse=1) Line 1258 + 0xe bytes C++ msvcr90d.dll!operator delete(void * pUserData=0x00000000005e9780) Line 54 + 0x12 bytes C++ msvcp90d.dll!std::allocator<unsigned short>::deallocate(unsigned short * _Ptr=0x00000000005e9780, unsigned __int64 __formal=16) Line 147 C++ msvcp90d.dll!std::basic_string<unsigned short,std::char_traits<unsigned short>,std::allocator<unsigned short> >::_Tidy(bool _Built=true, unsigned __int64 _Newsize=0) Line 2168 C++ msvcp90d.dll!std::basic_string<unsigned short,std::char_traits<unsigned short>,std::allocator<unsigned short> >::~basic_string<unsigned short,std::char_traits<unsigned short>,std::allocator<unsigned short> >() Line 916 + 0xf bytes C++ BoostTest.exe!boost::filesystem::exists<boost::filesystem::basic_path<std::basic_string<wchar_t,std::char_traits<wchar_t>,std::allocator<wchar_t> >,boost::filesystem::wpath_traits> >(const boost::filesystem::basic_path<std::basic_string<wchar_t,std::char_traits<wchar_t>,std::allocator<wchar_t> >,boost::filesystem::wpath_traits> & ph={...}) Line 292 C++ BoostTest.exe!boost::filesystem::exists(const boost::filesystem::basic_path<std::basic_string<wchar_t,std::char_traits<wchar_t>,std::allocator<wchar_t> >,boost::filesystem::wpath_traits> & ph={...}) Line 626 + 0x2d bytes C++ BoostTest.exe!wmain(int argc=1, wchar_t * * argv=0x00000000005c9340) Line 9 + 0x1a bytes C++ BoostTest.exe!__tmainCRTStartup() Line 579 + 0x19 bytes C BoostTest.exe!wmainCRTStartup() Line 399 C Best Regards M. Noman Khan

3 3

[review] FSM Review ends today
by Martin Vuille 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

The formal review for Andrey Semashev's Finite State Machines (FSM) ends today. If anyone is working on a review, please post it no later than Friday. I will post the results of the review early next week. Thanks to everyone who participated in the review. MV

1 0

[algorithm][string]use string algorithm without <locale> file
by Miki 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Below is my sample code to use boost string algorithm in VS2005, using platform Windows Mobile 6 Professional SDK. {code} #define BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE #include <boost/algorithm/string.hpp> using namespace std; void main(){ vector<string> strList; string str = "aaa, bbb, ccc"; using namespace boost::algorithm; split(strList, str, is_any_of(" ,")); } {code} The compilation fails, because Windows Mobile 6 Professional SDK doesn't have <locale> file. I found "boost\algorithm\string\classification.hpp" this file always includes <locale> file, even that BOOST_NO_STD_LOCALE is defined before. Is there any way to use string algorithm without the existence of std locale file?

1 0

[FSM] request for tips on fsm code project.
by andrea carbone 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

Hello, I am currently trying to develop a project using the Boost::FSM library. I really hope that it will be accepted in Boost. This is not a review or vote (that will come after ;) ). I need some practical tips on how to realize the design that I have in mind. I have experience in State Machine coding, but until now I have used some ad-hoc coding following the Gamma et al examples. I find boost::fsm library really interesting and clean. But, back to my request. I need to handle the states of a process. The process will be implemented in a class containing all required methods and data. Think for example to sensor management. Init (connect the device). Setup (configuration). Idle (nop). AcquireSingleData, AcquireMultiData ... etc. I need a unique instance of the sensor object. How can I make all the states aware of this unique instance? Avoiding singletons ... if possible. Is there some way in boost::fsm to automatically realize this design? I know, this is more a C++ design question, but I think that it is a common problem in FSM coding anyway. Thanks for all your suggestions. andrea -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-FSM--request-for-tips-on-fsm-code-project.-tp1914625… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 3

Point Release Management and Development Sponsorship (WAS Re: [next release] Any new libraries ready for the nextrelease?)
by Dean Michael Berris 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Bjørn Roald <bjorn(a)4roald.org> wrote: > > I agree in general that point releases are important. However I get the > nagging feeling there will always be a conflict of interest between moving > forward in features and the maintenance of released libraries features. > One question to address here is whether to let library authors and a main > boost release team focus on the moving forward part and let others do the > maintenance part as far as mechanizing the point release process. Some > collaboration between the two efforts would be natural and beneficial for > both, but I think it is important that this does not become intrusive. As I > see it there are two great reasons for loving boost, it move C++ forward and > it provide great production quality libraries. I hope both these can be > taken properly care of without getting in each others way. > I like this idea of having many release managers worry about the releasing of suitably tested and properly packaged point/major releases of the library. This way boost library authors can concentrate on maintaining a single version of the library -- the one in trunk for example -- which passes a test suite and performs as expected. What I see though is that the problem with this approach is/are the following: * Changes to libraries can only be made by library authors/maintainers, so if a bug is filed against a certain release (1.35 for example) fixing it would be the responsibility of the authors/maintainers of the library on that branch/release. If it was possible to have bugs fixed by others in a given branch and changes are licensed under the Boost Software License, then letting the authors/maintainers worry about the latest and greatest version of their libraries would be feasible -- and changes from releases are then submitted 'upstream' to be integrated to 'trunk'. * Currently, a release branch is cut from the previous release branch and changes for individual libraries are cherry picked and merged "as seen fit" by authors/maintainers. If it was possible to cut a major release branch from trunk and let a team do the cherry picking of changes that get into trunk back into the major release branch, then the quarterly release can still happen -- one team maintains 1.36 (stable), another 1.37 (latest). Debian has the same process of having a 'stable' branch which lives on its own and has a team managing it (and bug fixes that need to go out), an 'unstable' branch which has the greatest flux but lots of testing as well, and a 'testing' branch which eventually comes from 'unstable' to get merged with (and becomes) 'stable'. Changes from 'unstable' that pass the testing criteria are then merged to 'testing', gets tested, and once it passes gets merged into 'stable'. * Back-porting changes from trunk to point releases as well as 'up-streaming' a patch from point releases to trunk is a tedious process which can only be managed by people other than the library authors/maintainers. This opens up the possibility of greater contribution and opportunity for those who want to contribute to be able to do so without having to contend with the authors'/maintainers' time and bandwidth. If we let authors/maintainers of libraries concentrate on making the libraries better -- supporting new features, experimentation, testing, etc. -- instead of asking them to do the merge and maintenance of released versions, maybe we can stick with the quarterly releases branching from trunk, and letting released versions get maintained at their own pace. We can then start retiring older versions of the library and mark them as 'unsupported' after a certain period of time without having to ask authors/maintainers to keep worrying about previous releases and users of these previous releases. > > Test resources are essential and hard to find. Could testers be set up with > some sort of master schedule managed by a boost test manager so they test > various branches/tar-balls as required and report appropriately? That way > the maintainer working on a point release could as required request testing > on wide range of platforms without having their own costly setup. Somebody > need to be the manager of test resources and give priority as appropriate by > controlling the testing schedule to make this work. > One possibility in this regard is to encourage the use of virtual machines in the testing of libraries. Although severely limited, for instance testing of Sun compilers on OpenSolaris and Intel compilers in Linux can be done inside a Virtualbox/VMWare image. Interested testers would just have to set these virtual machines up and offer them as downloads somewhere that people can play around with. One thing that comes to mind is testing of specific compiler versions -- Intel 9/10 on Linux x86, GCC 4.1/4.2/4.3 on Linux x86, etc. -- which can be done by many people at the same time. Patches can be made from within the virtual machines and submitted to authors/maintainers in a systematic fashion for application into release branches and/or trunk. > > Some boost-users (or more likely their lawyers and managers) also would like > licenses under more traditional commercial terms. Don't ask me why -- but > it seems to be a fact of life. Companies such as BoostPro should be free to > be maintainer of released major versions and free to dual license as needed > to allow all developers to use boost. IANAL, but the current version of the license is very commercial-software friendly. Can't this be explained to these users instead of allowing the "corruption" of the license by allowing dual-licensing? -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.

1 0