- Boost - lists.boost.org

[Bind][Signals] visit_each workaround for GCC 3.3.x
by Doug Gregor 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

GCC 3.3.x seems to have some ADL-related trouble with visit_each that is causing some failures in Signals. Bind already has workarounds for this problem; we need only enable them for this version of GCC. I've committed the patch below to RC_1_34_0 and HEAD. Cheers, Doug Index: bind.hpp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/bind.hpp,v retrieving revision 1.55.2.1 diff -u -p -r1.55.2.1 bind.hpp --- bind.hpp 27 Apr 2006 16:20:59 -0000 1.55.2.1 +++ bind.hpp 20 Sep 2006 13:03:18 -0000 @@ -1161,7 +1161,8 @@ BOOST_BIND_OPERATOR( >=, greater_equal ) // visit_each, ADL -#if !defined( BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP ) && !defined( __BORLANDC__ ) +#if !defined( BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP ) && !defined( __BORLANDC__ )\ + && !(defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ <= 3) template<class V, class T> void visit_each( V & v, value<T> const & t, int ) { @@ -1180,7 +1181,8 @@ template<class V, class R, class F, clas // visit_each, no ADL -#if defined( BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP ) || defined( __BORLANDC__ ) +#if defined( BOOST_NO_ARGUMENT_DEPENDENT_LOOKUP ) || defined( __BORLANDC__ ) \ + || (defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ <= 3) template<class V, class T> void visit_each( V & v, _bi::value<T> const & t, int ) {

1 0

Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
by Duft Markus 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

All i can talk of is my experience using interix, since i didn't use cygwin that much. Cygwin was more or less dead at out company when i came in. The yhad too much problems with the cygwin builds. Some of the problems are, that the w32api for cygwin and mingw is not the *real* w32api, but some own thing they built. I really don't know how this w32api behaves, or if it has any drawbacks. As for gdb, the version that comes with interix 3.5 is from i-don't-know-when (seems like year 2k or something), so many years old. Maybe newer versions would work better. Debugging C code is not a problem, everything works fine there, but never try to debug C++, you'll get 10 lines far or so (until first using a STL string.....) ;o) As of the import/export problems with MS, wgcc really does a lot in this direction, one can say most of it's code is just for those problems. And i think it manages to push things in the right direction. One has to _only_ put __declspec(dllimport) in place where needed, and that _only_ for Data symbols. There is no need to differenciate static and shared libraries, just put the import everywhere ;o) wgcc manages the rest. -----Original Message----- From: libtool-bounces+markus.duft=salomon.at(a)gnu.org [mailto:libtool-bounces+markus.duft=salomon.at@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Brendon Costa Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:43 AM To: David Abrahams Cc: boost(a)lists.boost.org; libtool(a)gnu.org Subject: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released David Abrahams wrote: > "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft(a)salomon.at> writes: > >> When building with wgcc there are a few benefits: >> >> Wgcc uses the native windows compiler to build (so the code may or >> may not be faster ;o)) and whats a lot more important: the debug >> information produced is readable by visual studio, so you can debug >> the output. Gdb on windows (at least on interix) is so terribly >> broken, i could not debug 10 lines of code without gdb failing at >> some point. > > Works great for me under Cygwin, especially through emacs. Code may not be faster. It really depends on the implementation of the compiler. The differences would be negligible from my understanding, though with more resources MS may be able to optimise some things in their compiler... I don't know. I do prefer the MS debugger, but my experience with GDB is that it also works fine in windows (Under Cygwin and with MSYS/MinGW) and achieves its purpose well enough (I guess not using emacs is part of my problem :-) as it seems a little more clunky to use having to type in all these breakpoints... I need a GUI frontend for GDB i think...) >> The second thing is, that resulting executables depend on msvcrt.lib >> and are therefore binary compatible with nearly everything ;o) on >> windows. > > That's also true of MinGW, right? Yes. MinGW depends on msvcrt.lib >> When using gcc it has it's own libc (on interix gcc is a interix >> build, and has really not much to do with windows.... ;o//) and one >> can't link those things together, so in gcc built binaries one can >> _not_ use the win32 API which, on windows, is not really desireable. > > Huh? Not so; I have used the win32 API even through cygwin GCC. > And then there's gcc -mno-cygwin. Yep. There is a win32api library for cygwin. Same as MinGW really with -mno-cygwin i think... >> The last thing is, that tools such as Rational Purify may be used to >> examine the resulting binaries. It's all just really native ;o) >> >> I'm really overwhelmed that someone outside my company finally shows >> at least _some_ interest. It's really cool, give it a try! > > Not sure what I'm missing here, but at this point I don't see why I > should bother. The existing tools work for me and are > well-established, with good support. > One possible reason I can think of is that in the non-free world... Sometimes a company might distribute a C++ library + some header files (Without any source code). I have encountered this before. Since the ABI is not the same between MSVC and MinGW/GCC it forces you to use the compiler they have created the libraries using (Unless it is a pure C interface) and if you have a desire to use the autotools build framework (autoconf/automake/libtool) then this could be useful. Having a wrapper for MSVC that behaves like gcc would mean that you can use the autotools (A particulary important part of it is libtool for this discussion) build framework with the MSVC compiler. This may be beneficial in some situations instead of using the MSVC build environment. I tried cccl a while ago and shortly discovered a HEAP of issues especially trying to compile things using libtool. So i went and started my own shell script wrapper that improved on cccl. It got a fair way but i was not willing to put more time into it and being a shell script like libtool it slows compiling down a bit on large projects. Plus there is no way to fix the auto import problem with MSVC. So i gave up on that line of thought. From my understanding, wgcc is a compiled wrapper similar to cccl but it has had a lot more features put into it so it better "emulates" gcc. This has got advantages though is not suitable in a lot of situations. Instead of using a wrapper for the compiler/linker i have just started using a different build toolset from automake/libtool. Jam and Scons are two good examples that can use either compiler without having to force the usage of MSVC to behave like gcc. Anyhows, Thats just my two cents worth on the subject... Brendon. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

1 0

Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
by Duft Markus 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

There are plans to get distcc working on interix with wgcc, but these plans are somewhere in the future. But on the other hand it cannot be too complicated, since wgcc should behave like gcc ;o) If you give it a try, i would be really happy about feedback. P.S.: I knew that people would have interest if they only knew about the project ;o) Cheers, Markus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] Im Auftrag von David Klein Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2006 22:59 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org Betreff: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released David Abrahams wrote: > "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft(a)salomon.at> writes: > > >> Hi again! >> >> For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools >> and mnay other interesting things: >> > > I'm not sure whether this is on-topic for Boost; it seems of somewhat > borderline relevance. However, now that you've started the thread, > one obvious question leaps to mind: why would anyone want to use wgcc > in lieu of Cygwin or MinGW gcc? > > hi all, i try to get 'distcc' (running on cygwin) compiling with vc71 + vc8. i can't switch to gcc, and i don't want to buy 'incredibuild'. btw, i only found out about wgcc because i'm reading the boost lists :) -- regards, dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
by Duft Markus 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Hi! Maybe you want to give RC1 a try, just for testing, not productive. I really need people using it, and telling me if theres something wrong. I've gotten _no_ feedback until now, and it's the second version now ;o) I'm only using it myself but for myself (here at my company of course) i got a list of 115 projects now compiling with it, including many open source projects. Cheers, Markus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] Im Auftrag von Russell Mok Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2006 21:42 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org Betreff: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released I have been using interix for roughly 2 years, so I am definitely interested in wgcc (not RC1 though). There were a few reasons for me to choose interix over Cygwin. Licensing/cost was one. Tools not expecting "\r\n" at the end of line or '\' as root directory (including many in-house scripts) also worked under interix with minimal porting efforts. Besides, interix is on top of the windows kernel, not win32 API. Hence it should be 'lighter' than Cygwin. On the other hand, interix is not available on the 'Home' edition of windows. David Abrahams wrote: > > > "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft(a)salomon.at> writes: > > > Hi again! > > > > For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools > and > mnay other interesting things: > > I'm not sure whether this is on-topic for Boost; it seems of somewhat > borderline relevance. However, now that you've started the thread, > one obvious question leaps to mind: why would anyone want to use wgcc > in lieu of Cygwin or MinGW gcc? > > -- > Dave Abrahams > Boost Consulting > www.boost-consulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

BoostBook/QuickBook automated testing tools ASAP!
by David Abrahams 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

http://boost-consulting.com/boost/libs/fusion/doc/html/fusion/extension.htm… shows: namespace traits { template<typename Struct, int Pos> struct tag_of<boost::fusion::example_struct_iterator<Struct, Pos> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ { typedef example_struct_iterator_tag type; }; } Now, surely, the authors didn't intend example_struct_iterator to be defined in namespace boost::fusion. The example where it's defined doesn't show any namespace declaration. This sort of problem either has to be flushed out by an automated tool or it needs to be painstakingly weeded out by hand, usually in response to user complaints that the examples don't work. You *will* get complaints, but by then it will be too late to save users the pain. I will be more than happy to work with someone on adapting LitRE to BoostBook. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com

2 2

[wave] [1.34.0] Wave Test Compile Failures
by Caleb Epstein 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Also available at http://tinyurl.com/zoz2p: Report Time: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:01:16 +0000 Compiler output [2006-09-19 10:37:43 UTC]: "g++" -ftemplate-depth-128 -O0 -fno-inline -Wall -g -fPIC -DBOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_LIB_DIAGNOSTIC=1 -I".." -c -o "/home/cae/boost-regression/RC_1_34_0/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/wave/test/build/test_slex_lexer.test/gcc-4.1.1_sunos_i86pc/debug/test_slex_lexer.o" "../libs/wave/test/build/../testlexers/test_slex_lexer.cpp" ../boost/wave/cpplexer/cpplexer_exceptions.hpp:161: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual int boost::wave::cpplexer::lexing_exception::get_severity() const' ../boost/wave/cpplexer/cpplexer_exceptions.hpp:113: error: overriding 'virtual int boost::wave::cpplexer::cpplexer_exception::get_severity() const throw ()' ../boost/wave/cpplexer/cpplexer_exceptions.hpp:165: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual int boost::wave::cpplexer::lexing_exception::get_errorcode() const' ../boost/wave/cpplexer/cpplexer_exceptions.hpp:112: error: overriding 'virtual int boost::wave::cpplexer::cpplexer_exception::get_errorcode() const throw ()' -- Caleb Epstein

2 1

wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
by Duft Markus 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Hi again! For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools and mnay other interesting things: wgcc is a cross-compiler tool primarily written for Microsoft's Interix. Its primary purpose is to produce native Windows binaries (internally using the Microsoft Tool chain), and to mimic the behaviour of the GNU compiler collection. This means that wgcc understands many of GCC's command line arguments, and in most cases delivers the same results as expected, sometimes manipulating the underlying tool's input and output. Even though wgcc was written for Interix only, it can be used on native Windows (without Interix), and other Systems, like Cygwin. The only restriction is that on Platforms other than Interix, only Windows style paths are understood. This will change in the future for Cygwin, and/or others. On Interix wgcc automatically converts UNIX style paths to Windows style ones (i.e. /wgcc to C:\SFU\wgcc). wgcc abstracts away lots of inconveniences that are introduced by building static libraries, shared libraries (DLL's) and executables with any possible combination of those three. When using wgcc both static and shared libraries behave exactly the same on Windows, and this makes tons of defines unnecessary. The only thing that still has to be done is to give all Data symbols (i.e. Variables) an import attribute (__declspec(dllimport)) when using them (i.e. in the library header files) in an executable. For a simple example take a look at the file tests/shared.test inside the wgcc distribution. The Release Candidate 1 of wgcc has a completely rewritten Configuration File parser, which allows for faster and safer parsing; now adding the ability to include empty directives in configuration files. This could be something like "paths.c++ =" to unset all C++ search directories. Also the ability to automatically generate export definitions and import trampolines for mixing static and shared libraries with executables has been reviewed and improved. This did not change the behaviour of wgcc regarding the 2.0-pre.x versions, but only speeded it up a little. pxwc, the accompanying library for wgcc allows further abstraction for C code, allowing use of the ANSI function names (i.e. without the leading "_"). pxwc currently includes only a small set of functions, so your help is needed to find out which others to include. Just open a Feature Request at http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=158081&atid=806407 and we will try to add functionality as soon as possible. Using the patch provided for GNU Libtool, wgcc can be used with many Open Source packages. After patching and installing Libtool, simply bootstrap the package in question, configure (set CC, CXX and LD to "wgcc") and build. The configure Script should tell that the linker in use is the "Interix to Win32 cross linker (wgcc)". Since the version jump to 2.x wgcc now resides in the Sourceforge Subversion Repository. The CVS Repository still continues to contain previous wgcc versions (0.x). To continue improving wgcc and pxwc packages, we now need your help in testing them. Please download wgcc and try to compile you software using it. If something goes wrong please contact mduft or open an issue using the Sourceforge Tracker at http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=158081&atid=806404, or ask your questions at the forums at http://sourceforge.net/forum/?group_id=158081. You can browse the Subversion Repository here: http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/interix-wgcc/trunks/ Documentation can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=158081&package_id= 203917&release_id=446943 Source Packages can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=158081&package_id= 177049&release_id=445894 The Patch for Libtool can be found here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=158081&package_id= 196163&release_id=446510

4 3

UTF8 library - preliminary submission
by Nemanja Trifunovic 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Hello everybody. Encouradged by responses I got at my initial query, I have uploaded a preliminary version of the UTF8 library to the Sandbox Vault (directory: Strings - Test Processing). At this point it is just a "Boostified" version of the UTF-8 CPP 1.0 library hosted at http://sourceforge.net/projects/utfcpp I plan to add more features like the "utf_iterator" (proposed by Ronald Pibinger), replacement of invalid utf-8 sequences, etc. based on the suggestions from this list and also from the users of UTF-8 CPP library. Thanks in advance for your comments, suggestions, and even critique :) Nemanja Trifunovic. --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

1 0

interest in hyper graph library
by Brian Makin 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Pinging interest in a hypergraph library. (there seems to be interest as per mailing list and boost summer of code) Couple questions to start the topic. Extension to BGL or seperate library? (prefered, mandatory, depends) Previous or current efforts towards this end? Anyone particularly interested in this who also wants to begin a side discussion as to design and architecture? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released
by Duft Markus 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

When building with wgcc there are a few benefits: Wgcc uses the native windows compiler to build (so the code may or may not be faster ;o)) and whats a lot more important: the debug information produced is readable by visual studio, so you can debug the output. Gdb on windows (at least on interix) is so terribly broken, i could not debug 10 lines of code without gdb failing at some point. The visual studio debugger (the 2005 version especially) is very very much better. (gdb on cygwin doesn't behave too good either. This was the initial reason for wgcc to be written (we are a 300 programmer company ;o), we need to debug...)) With cygwin the thing is, that cygwin isn't really quite stable on win xp and above when using more than one CPU. I don't know how MinGW behaves there. The second thing is, that resulting executables depend on msvcrt.lib and are therefore binary compatible with nearly everything ;o) on windows. When using gcc it has it's own libc (on interix gcc is a interix build, and has really not much to do with windows.... ;o//) and one can't link those things together, so in gcc built binaries one can _not_ use the win32 API which, on windows, is not really desireable. The last thing is, that tools such as Rational Purify may be used to examine the resulting binaries. It's all just really native ;o) At the moment as i wrote in my release note only Interix is supported, since this is also stable on win xp and above with multiple processors. But using cygwin as a build environment only, using wgcc as compiler is possible too, i'd just need to implement one method, about 5 lines of code, to convert paths from unix <-> windows style. I hope this is an answer to your questions! I'm really overwhelmed that someone outside my company finally shows at least _some_ interest. It's really cool, give it a try! Cheers, Markus -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] Im Auftrag von David Abrahams Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. September 2006 16:07 An: boost(a)lists.boost.org Cc: libtool(a)gnu.org Betreff: Re: [boost] wgcc 2.0 RC1 released "Duft Markus" <Markus.Duft(a)salomon.at> writes: > Hi again! > > For all interested in native Windows binaries built with Autotools and > mnay other interesting things: I'm not sure whether this is on-topic for Boost; it seems of somewhat borderline relevance. However, now that you've started the thread, one obvious question leaps to mind: why would anyone want to use wgcc in lieu of Cygwin or MinGW gcc? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

3 2