- Boost - lists.boost.org

Generic Image Library
by Siddhartha Sen 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

Being new to this, I have tried looking up the functionalities of GIL. I was thinking of implementing the addition of negative image conversion as well to GIL, incorporating the usage of parallel programming using OpenMP library. Is there any demand for that? I feel that parallel programming will massively improve the computational efficiency of GIL.

2 1

[review][fixed_string] review period extended to Dec 8
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

After conversation with the review wizards, the review period for candidate Boost.FixedString is extended till Sunday, Dec 8. Hopefully this will allow for some more reviews to come in and for the ongoing discussions to stabilize. So, if you're considering to submit your review, now is the time to reserve some time to do so. Thanks to everybody who has contributed so far, it is a very productive review we're having. Joaquín M López Muñoz Review manager for candidate Boost.FixedString

1 0

Re: [boost] [fixed_string][review] Review of fixed_string
by Peter Dimov 05 Dec '19

05 Dec '19

> - everything should ideally be constexpr. The problem here is that > constexpr requires initializing all elements, and this will heavily > penalize runtime uses of f.ex. fixed_string<512>. On compilers with > __builtin_is_constant_evaluated (gcc 9, clang 9) we should use that; > otherwise, it might be worth it to create a specialization for N < some > suitable upper limit. Wait, I have an idea. template<std::size_t N> struct fixed_string { private: std::size_t size_ = 0; union { char first_ = 0; char data_[ N+1 ]; }; public: fixed_string() = default; }; Now default initialization sets just the first char to zero, as we want, and value initialization initializes all data_ to zero and is constexpr. auto f1() { fixed_string<24> s; return s; } auto f2() { constexpr fixed_string<24> s{}; return s; } https://godbolt.org/z/uhf4S4 I don't know if that's defined behavior or not, but if it isn't, it better be.

2 1

[review][fixed_string]
by Peter Koch Larsen 04 Dec '19

04 Dec '19

Dear boosters Here is my review of fixed_string > - What is your evaluation of the design? I have just completed a similar but much less ambitious design - about 700 LOC in total. The purpose is to replace char string[N] representing string in an ageing code base that is C++98 currently and partly embedded. My design does support a partial compatibility with std::string but that was not the primary goal. The interface compatibility of std::string is a nice feature, but I do not see a reason to attempt to make it a drop-in replacement. The non-compatibility with char[N] is missed by me and probably also some other in the embedded domain. It would be nice if fixed_string<N> had size = N + 1 for char types. > - What is your evaluation of the implementation? Nice and clean. As others have noted, constexpr and noexcept support would be nice. I would also prefer if I could have an option that does not require usage of exceptions, perhaps as a configuration option. Specifically, I would like to be able to control error handling (terminate instead of throw, ability to react to undefined behaviour). Also, I would like to have more forgiving functions that could return the status of failing operations. > - What is your evaluation of the documentation? Nice and clean. > - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? If the interface could be extended, It could potentially be useful to many - and to me - if I manage to convince my company to ugrade to C++17. So to summarize: 1) compatibility with char[N]: this requires that the size member is removed. In my source, I still have an O(1) size implemented by having data[N] give the free space in the string. If data[N] == 255, this indicates that the real free size is stored in the elements data[N - 1] and below. There are many ways to encode that length portably. 2) append and assign could have companion functions, that behave in spirit like strncpy/strncat. I have named these function try_append and try_assign. 3) Errorhandling strategy available. > - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have > any problems? No, just reading code. > - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick > reading? In-depth study? About three hours reading and writing this comment. > - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes. > > And finally, every review should answer this question: > - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? The constexpr and noexcept parts should be fixed and compatibility with char[] would be nice. But yes, it should be accepted.

1 0

How to handle NULL string for UTF conversion function
by Alexander Grund 04 Dec '19

04 Dec '19

Hi, in my work on Boost.Nowide I encountered a valid NULL string and am unsure how to handle it. Context: Every wrapper functions is basically implemented like: int fFOO(const char* s){ wstackstring const ws(s); // Converts UTF-8 to wchar-buffer/string return _wfFoo(ws.c_str()); } Similar functions like `std::wstring widen(string-or-const-char-ptr)` are provided which can be used like `return _wfFoo(widen(s).c_str());` in the example above. All was fine, because (IIRC) calling e.g. `fopen(NULL)` is not allowed anyway. However `freopen` DOES allow a NULL for the string. So now I'm left with a couple options and would like some opinions on them: 1. Make (w)stackstring aware of NULL input and if default constructed or with NULL return NULL for c_str(). Makes it easy to use as one could even say `return _wfFoo(wstackstring(s).c_str());` w/o any checks but would be inconsistent with the `widen` functions which convert the passed pointer into a std::(w)string and hence require != NULL 2. Disallow NULL (via assert) for all conversions and require manual checking. Best usage would then probably be to ditch the temporary and do `return _wfFoo(s ? wstackstring(s).c_str() : NULL);` 3. Just like 1. but rename (w)stackstring to e.g. (w)cstring (or ncstring/wcstring, or narrow_cstring/wide_cstring) to highlight that it acts like a C-String (and can be NULL as opposed to empty but never NULL) 4. Ditch stackstring entirely. It was complained about by Zach during the review although defended by the author as "stackstring is barely on-stack buffer optimization - it isn't general string and never intended to be so. It isn't in details because it can actually be useful outside library scope." So this would worsen performance a bit as usual SSO are to small for common filenames. Thanks for reading and any insight is welcome! Alex

6 5

[fixed_string] Gavin's review
by Gavin Lambert 04 Dec '19

04 Dec '19

This is my review of the proposed FixedString library. - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Yes, I think it should be ACCEPTED into Boost. Regarding the bikeshedding of the library/class name itself, I prefer "fixed_capacity_string", as the most accurately descriptive name I can either think of myself or that I have read posted by others. I don't think we should be afraid of longer class names, even for vocabulary types. People can always alias them to something shorter to save typing. (Second choice would be "array_string", although that risks misinterpreting as "string_array", which is something entirely different. "stack_string" is another possibility, though might be misleading if contained within another object on the heap.) - What is your evaluation of the design? Overall, looks good. I agree with the motivations for creating such a type in the first place. I would prefer if it didn't reinvent some existing storage concepts already provided by boost::static_vector (and I don't entirely buy the "reduce dependencies" arguments); however there are some other justifications for this that I do consider valid (such as static_vector not being constexpr). As previously noted, I think implementing substr to return a string_view is a mistake; this will cause lifetime problems if someone tries to drop-in replace a std::string in existing code (which was one of the motivating use cases). I'm happy with this being implemented as a new method "subview". (Maybe std::string should do the same thing...) However I still disagree with the choice to also provide "substr" but with a fixed_string return type. Its semantics (with regard to the capacity of the returned string) are still sufficiently different from std::string as to make its usage confusing and poor-performance-prone. With the method omitted, someone attempting a drop-in-replacement will get an error and will need to decide how best to handle it (usually by using subview, but this may require other changes to extend lifetime, which is why spelling subview as "substr" was bad). And if they really want a copy of the substring, they can still do that via subview simply by assigning it to a fixed_string variable -- this would also require them to explicitly choose an appropriate capacity, which I regard as a good thing. For similar reasons to the above, my preference is also to entirely omit operator+ (as in the current design). The consumer can decide how to rewrite things to use operator+= instead. (While there are ways to implement operator+, as has been discussed, all of these come with hefty caveats and I don't think a compromise is sufficiently safe.) - What is your evaluation of the implementation? I did not have time to do more than glance at the implementation. Although I did previously note (thanks to Deniz for calling attention to it) that the unconditional #define BOOST_FIXED_STRING_USE_BOOST in config.hpp is not the correct usage for configuration defines in Boost. I also think that this could make better use of Boost.Config's existing defines -- while a stated goal was to also produce a standalone library, this could be done by using Boost.Config inside of Boost and using a standalone mini-config header with equivalent defines only for the standalone build. I'm also dubious about the division of implementation between three identically-named header files. Unless this is required for avoiding-ugly-docs reasons I think it would be preferable to merge these into a single header -- and perhaps only a single header, where Boost.Config is used. Finally, though, I wonder if perhaps a variation of this type should be implemented which has as storage only the array itself without a separate size member. This might better serve some serialization or I/O scenarios (as a drop-in replacement for a raw char array), although with the caveat that it would probably have to rely on strlen-equivalents and thus could not contain embedded nulls (which is why it should be a separate type, if implemented, as this is a larger departure from std::string). As this would also typically have a smaller capacity than other use cases it could do things like zero-init which might be too expensive for the general-purpose fixed_string, but which can be very helpful for serialization scenarios. - What is your evaluation of the documentation? The documentation is very short, but seems sufficient for the small scope of the class. - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? I think it will be extremely useful. I do wonder if an immutable_string type would also be useful (especially for constexpr), but that could be a separate library. - Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? I did not try it. - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? A quick reading. Probably a couple of hours in total spread over the entire review period. - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Yes, I frequently work on code where heap allocation is constrained or disallowed. And with strings.

3 2

[review][fixed_string] FixedString review starts today
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 04 Dec '19

04 Dec '19

The Boost formal review of Krystian Stasiowski and Vinnie Falco's FixedString library starts today November 25 and extends up to December 4. Description FixedString provides a dynamically resizable string of characters with compile-time fixed capacity and contiguous embedded storage in which the characters are placed within the string object itself. Its API closely resembles that of std::string. Repo and docs GitHub repository: https://github.com/18/fixed_string Online docs: https://18.github.io/doc/fixed_string Review questions 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? I invite you to submit your review, either publicly to the developers or the users lists, or else, if for whatever reason you don't want to go public, directly to me. Thank you for investing your time on reviewing Krystian and Vinnie's work and for contributing to the advancement of Boost. Best regards, Joaquín M López Muñoz Review manager for candidate Boost.FixedString

11 39

Error handling benchmarks: LEAF, Boost Outcome
by Emil Dotchevski 02 Dec '19

02 Dec '19

I wrote a benchmark program for LEAF and Boost Outcome. Here are the results: https://github.com/zajo/leaf/blob/master/benchmark/benchmark.md

3 4

Reminder: Master branch closes for the 1.72.0 release on Wednesday
by Marshall Clow 02 Dec '19

02 Dec '19

See the calendar at https://www.boost.org/development/ -- Marshall P.S. Don't forget the release notes!

3 5

Interest in making template programming imperative?
by Tianjiao Yin 02 Dec '19

02 Dec '19

Hi there, Is there any interest in library that makes template programming imperative. Basically it provides following API VAR(T); // define a variable T SET(T, Type1); // Assign T = Type1 GET(T); // This macro will be expanded to Type1 SET(T, Type2); // Re-assign T = Type2 GET(T); // This macro will be expanded to Type2 The same idea applies to constexpr variable as well. I.e. it's possible to re-define constexpr variable after initialization, though this functionality is not implemented yet. - Github: https://github.com/Mizuchi/tm - Try it online: https://godbolt.org/z/yfQb4K Thanks, Tianjiao

1 0