- Boost - lists.boost.org

Error in setup_boostbook.sh
by Manuel Fiorelli 24 Aug '08

24 Aug '08

setup_boostbook.sh (and probably the python script) fails because it attempts to download FOP using the (not existing) URL http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/apache/xmlgraphics/fop/fop-0.94-bin-… instead of http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/apache/xmlgraphics/fop/binaries/fop-… It simply misses the /binaries component inside the path. Regards, Manuel Fiorelli

3 3

[review] FSM Review extended until August 27th
by Martin Vuille 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

By request, the formal review for Andrey Semashev's Finite State Machines (FSM) library has been extended and will run until August 27th. This is your last chance to submit a review and cast your vote for or against inclusion of this library into Boost. The documentation (overview and reference) is available online: http://boost-extension.redshoelace.com/docs/boost/fsm/doc/state_machine.html http://boost-extension.redshoelace.com/docs/boost/fsm/doc/reference.html The current submission is available from the sandbox vault at http://tinyurl.com/yjozfn (or http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=FSM.zip &directory=&PHPSESSID=48493076c1ea60ae316f7b60f15b9ed1, if you prefer.) ----------- Description ----------- "The main goals of the library are: * Simplicity. It should be very simple to create state machine using this library. * Performance. The state machine infrastructure should not be very time and memory-consuming in order to be applicable in more use cases. * Extensibility. A developer may want to add more states to the existing state machine, and this addition should be relatively safe since it shouldn't interfere with the existing states. The developer should also be able to specify additional transitions and events for the machine with minimum modifications to the existing code." "Boost.FSM vs. Boost.Statechart There is another library in Boost that provides similar functionality: Boost.Statechart. Although it currently covers almost all major Boost.FSM features and provides ones that are not supported in this library, Boost.Statechart is more targeted to creation of big and complex state machines with possibility of distributed development. But this does not come at no price and Statechart has little tools for compile-time programming and does not provide as much run-time performance as Boost.FSM does. So there are main guidelines for users to make a decision between Boost.FSM and Boost.Statechart: [...]" "The following compilers are known to have problems or most likely will have ones: * Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 and 7.0. Most probably will fail to compile due to lack of partial template specialization support. * Borland C++ Builder 5.5.1 (free version). Fails to compile due to lack of partial template specialization and in-class using declarations support. Some other minor problems also have been noticed. Newer versions of the compiler have not been tested. * OpenWatcom 1.5. Fails to compile due to problems with Boost.MPL code. Newer versions of the compiler have not been tested. * SunPro C++ Compiler 5.5 for Solaris (SPARC). Most likely will show problems with function overload resolution. Newer versions of the compiler have not been tested." The current submission is available from the sandbox vault at http://tinyurl.com/yjozfn (or http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=FSM.zip &directory=&PHPSESSID=48493076c1ea60ae316f7b60f15b9ed1, if you prefer.) ---------------------------------- What to include in Review Comments ---------------------------------- Your comments may be brief or lengthy, but basically the Review Manager needs your evaluation of the library. If you identify problems along the way, please note if they are minor, serious, or showstoppers. Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review: What is your evaluation of the design? What is your evaluation of the implementation? What is your evaluation of the documentation? What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And, finally, every review should answer this question: Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Be sure to say this explicitly so that your other comments don't obscure your overall opinion. Thanks in advance for your participation in this review. MV

2 1

[fsm] Accessing a state instance in a state machine?
by Boris 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

I had a quick look at the documentation of the Boost FSM library as I need to implement a simple protocol handler for a network application. The protocol handler sends and receives text messages and switches between various states. What I wonder is how I can pass for example a reference to a socket to a state so that the state can send a text message? There doesn't seem to be a way to acccess a state instance in a state machine? Boris

2 1

For those who have/know well the g++ 4.3.0 library
by Gennaro Prota 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

Hi, looking at the trunk regression report for dynamic_bitset, there's a stream inserter failure on gcc 4.3.0 which puzzles me :-) It's on Sandia-gcc, and happens only when -std=gnu++0x is absent. Any clue? -- Genny

1 0

[mpl, fusion] minimal conforming sequence
by Peter Dimov 23 Aug '08

23 Aug '08

Hi, Assume that I have a custom type sequence S that has two operations, size<S>::value and element<S,I>::type (with whatever spelling). What needs to be done to adapt S into a conforming MPL or Fusion sequence? In a perfect world, the answer would not require the inclusion any MPL or Fusion headers and would consist of three specializations. ;-)

3 4

New libraries should provide forward declarations?
by Peter Bartlett 22 Aug '08

22 Aug '08

Hi Boost community, Would it practical to add a rule of thumb to the developer guidelines that library developers should offer a fwd declaration header for their library when possible? For me the rationale is as follows: - Boost headers are relatively heavy includes - Pre-compiled headers are only available on a subset of compilers. - Client side forward declarations are often problematic. E.g. - - Boost.Tuple: redeclarations of default template arguments are illegal (although MSVC lets you do it if you are prepared to suffer a warning) so including boost/tuple.hpp after mylibraryutils/boost_tuple_fwd.hpp is illegal. - - Boost.Function : The removal of the allocator template parameter has broken our code when we experimentally checked the 1.36 beta, as our forward declarations of Boost.Functions are now wrong. The existence of boost/tuple/tuple_fwd.hpp and boost/function/function_fwd.hpp would thus have significantly improved the user experience in my case. Thanks for listening, Pete Bartlett

6 10

[log] Filter bug (Andrey? :)
by Boris 22 Aug '08

22 Aug '08

Andrey, can you tell me why the following program writes the second message? ---------- #include <boost/log/sources/severity_logger.hpp> #include <boost/log/logging_core.hpp> #include <boost/log/utility/init/to_console.hpp> #include <boost/log/utility/init/to_file.hpp> #include <boost/log/utility/init/common_attributes.hpp> #include <boost/log/formatters/format.hpp> #include <boost/log/formatters/attr.hpp> #include <boost/log/formatters/date_time.hpp> #include <boost/log/formatters/message.hpp> #include <boost/log/filters/attr.hpp> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> enum severity_level { info, warn, error }; boost::log::sources::severity_logger logger; int main() { boost::shared_ptr<boost::log::sinks::synchronous_sink<boost::log::sinks::text_ostream_backend>> sink = boost::log::init_log_to_file("test.txt"); boost::log::add_common_attributes(); sink->locked_backend()->set_formatter(boost::log::formatters::format("[%1%] %2%") % boost::log::formatters::attr("Severity") % boost::log::formatters::message()); sink->locked_backend()->auto_flush(true); boost::log::logging_core::get()->set_filter(boost::log::filters::attr<int>("Severity") > info); BOOST_LOG_SEV(logger, warn) << "first message"; // Message is not written. boost::log::logging_core::get()->set_filter(boost::log::filters::attr<int>("Severity") < warn); BOOST_LOG(logger) << "second message"; // Why is this message written?? } ---------- The first message is not written as the severity level warn is greater than info. However for the second message the default severity level info is smaller than warn. Thus I would expect the second message is not written either? Is this a bug? Boris

2 4

[range] No iterator_range::const_reference
by Francois Barel 22 Aug '08

22 Aug '08

Hi list, boost::iterator_range currently contains both 'iterator' and 'reference' typedefs, and yet only a 'const_iterator' one (no 'const_reference'). This can be a problem with Spirit actions (compilation errors, see trac ticket #2234 - http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2234) After removing Spirit code, it boils down to: //////////////////// #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_stl.hpp> #include <boost/range/iterator_range.hpp> int main() { typedef const boost::iterator_range< const char* > cir; boost::phoenix::stl::front::result< cir > foo; // compilation error return 0; } //////////////////// The problem comes from the instantiation of boost::phoenix::stl::front::result< const iterator_range<...> > which, since its template argument is const, accesses its const_reference typedef -- which doesn't exist in iterator_range. Does it make sense / is it possible to add a const_reference typedef in iterator_range? Thanks, Francois

3 2

boost for embedded?
by Fleming, Edward 22 Aug '08

22 Aug '08

Newbie question if anyone can help: Is there a makefile for building boost (especially regex) with a Microsoft compiler for Windows Embedded CE/Mobile (ARM platform)? Any information would be appreciated! (howto, location of makefile, etc.) Thanks, Ed ------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation

3 2

_ReadWriteBarrier as memory fence, or not?
by Simon Thornington 22 Aug '08

22 Aug '08

Hi folks, Quick question about the use of _ReadWriteBarrier (Win32 MSVC): According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684208(VS.85).aspx , this compiler intrinsic doesn't generate any memory fencing instructions at all, it's strictly a compiler optimization barrier. I was wondering if someone had any documentation to contradict this, or if boost is relying on the new volatile semantics in VC2005 to ensure the fence? It sure looks like it's being used as if it were a real memory fence, but I am not sure that's the case. I'm not an expert though. Cheers, Simon.

5 8