- Boost - lists.boost.org

Boost compatibility/communication issue with 1.47 to 1.7
by nunna, sarath babu (GE Healthcare) 03 Jul '19

03 Jul '19

Hello All, So far we have used Boost 1.47 VS2010 built binaries integrated with our VS2010 Code Base . But now we are upgrading VS2010 to VS2017 of our product code base, also we tried Boost 1.70 boost built using VS2017 and integrated with our VS2017 code base. Our product should be compatible with older versions of all tools including boost. We have not faced any issues except boost. Issue: 1.7 boost is not able to communicate to 1.47 boost and giving "SERIALIZATION ERRORS". 1.47 boost is not able to communicate with 1.7 boost and giving "SERIALIZATION ERRORS". Please help us and let us know which boost version we could upgrade that can be compatible with 1.47. Note: The customer is already using 1.47 2010 boost binaries with built VS2010 product which we can't change. Please suggest us the resolution or the version that we should use. Thanks, Sarath.

4 4

Construction of /defaultlib:XXX for boost::python
by Kacvinsky, Tom 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

I discovered while using boost 1.69 with Python 2.7 that a /defaultlib:XXX directive for the boost::python import library is injected into each object file that uses boost::python header files. What I have not been able to figure out is the magic for doing this. I presume it is a macro that makes a #pragma for default libs based on the threading model, the address model, the version of Python in use, and the _MSC_VER compiler macro. Am I am on the right track? Where would this code be? I could find it via searching for #\w?pragma in the code base. Thanks, Tom

2 1

out_ptr review
by Glen Fernandes 30 Jun '19

30 Jun '19

[Edit: Some changes for clarity within, as it was pointed out on Slack that some of the phrasing is confusing. Also updated subject.] Many thanks to JeanHeyd for going through the Boost review process, and to Zach for managing the review. Briefly: I cannot justify acceptance for out_ptr just yet in its current form. I hope to see it return for a new review if the feedback from this review shapes the design so that some of these concerns are resolved. Second: This excludes "inout_ptr" (for which I had even more concerns) and just covers "out_ptr" which is the simpler and more common use case of the two. Below when comparing "what happens under the hood" with out_ptr against the hand written code that a user would write to use a typical C out-pointer API with smart pointers, this is what I'm comparing: [Typical code user would write to use a smart pointer]: Type* raw; Result result = TheCApi(args..., &raw); if (!Success(result)) { // failure (e.g. return, or branch and handle error) } Smart<Type, Deleter> smart(raw, etc...); [What would happen under the hood when using out_ptr]: /* First, 'smart' already has to exist here before TheCApi is called. Either as Smart<Type, Deleter> smart; or Smart<Type, Deleter> smart(nullptr, etc...); depending on deleter */ /* User writes: Result result = TheCApi(args..., out_ptr(smart)); or Result result = TheCApi(args..., out_ptr(smart, etc...)); depending on deleter */ Type* raw = nullptr; Result result = TheCApi(args..., &raw); if (raw != nullptr) { smart.reset(raw); // or smart.reset(raw, etc...); depending on deleter } if (!Success(result)) { // failure (e.g. return, or branch and handle error) } Concern 1. Having to define the smart pointer before TheCApi is called. Ordinarily this might be fine for some smart pointers and stateful deleters, but it may not be fine or desirable for others (depending on the deleter, and depending on the use case). Concern 2. The original user code initializes the smart pointer based on Success(result). The out_ptr version does so based on whether the raw out pointer was changed to something non-null by TheCApi. This might be fine for some cases, but it may not be for others. That it isn't the same as fundamental logic as the user code bothers me, though. Concern 3. The equivalent of the hand written user code is less overhead. Personally I'm of the opinion that this doesn't matter too, but here the author does say he has users who cannot abide by it, and that this facility needs support from e.g. std::unique_ptr to be viable. I'm not a fan of needing unique_ptr implementations to add support for this to make it comparable to some user's hand written code (And this also leads to concern 4 below). Concern 4. The UB optimization that the author wrote because of Concern 3 is a real concern to him. The UB optimization has no place in Boost, and one of which doesn't even work with many C++ library vendors' unique_ptr. (Fortunately the Boost reviews have already echoed this sentiment and I believe this is going away). Concern 5. Supporting other custom smart pointers requires effectively re-implementing out_ptr_t by specialization. I have come to see this as not viable. (Already mentioned in other reviews, and I echo this.) Concern 6. C APIs where the deleter (its state, logic, etc.) are governed by some other result from TheCApi. This is can be worked around in many cases, but the workaround is clumsy. Or insupportable, in other cases. i.e. The stateful deleter in the example above is always initialized with 'etc...' either before-hand via Smart<Type> smart(nullptr, etc...) or at call site with: TheCApi(args, out_ptr(etc...)); before analyzing other results of calling TheCApi. [Concern 7. This concern I had made notes about pre-review has already been eliminated, when the unconditionally noexcept destructor is now only conditionally noexcept.] Other thoughts: The suggestion by Emil lead to an interesting alternative idea to this problem domain, but I had no time to fully explore it. I don't think it would address all of these concerns. It has some other greater appeal, e.g. a way to call C APIs that materializes the smart pointers as results (along with C API return value) of an "Invoke-style" thing. Or even a way to transform a C API with out-pointers into a C++ callable that returns smart pointers (along with C API return value) via a "Bind-style" thing. Glen

2 1

out_ptr's formal review starts now!
by Zach Laine 30 Jun '19

30 Jun '19

Dear Boost community, The formal review of JeanHeyd Meneide's out_ptr library starts Sunday, June 16th and ends on Wednesday, June 26th. out_ptr is a library for making it easy to interoperate between smart pointers and traditional C-style initialization and allocation interfaces. It also enables doing so in a way that allows library authors to opt into speed optimizations for their smart pointers that give them performance equivalent to typical C pointers (see benchmarks ( https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/blob/master/docs/out_ptr/benchmarks.adoc) and the Standard C++ proposal for more details). Online docs can be found here: https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/blob/master/docs/out_ptr.adoc The GitHub repository is available here: https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr Also, there is an associated standards proposal: https://thephd.github.io/vendor/future_cxx/papers/d1132.html We encourage your participation in this review. At a minimum, please state: - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost - Your name - Your knowledge of the problem domain You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information: - What is your evaluation of the library's: * Design * Implementation * Documentation * Tests * Usefulness - Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s)? * What was the experience? Any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? All issues discussed during this review will be tracked on the library's GitHub issue tracker at https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/issues. Regards, Zach Laine

11 31

out_ptr review
by David Sankel 29 Jun '19

29 Jun '19

# Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost No. Not until some of the major issues are addressed. # Your name David Sankel # Your knowledge of the problem domain I've had to wrap C APIs on multiple occasions. # What is your evaluation of the library's: ## Design The design of the `out_ptr` type is reasonable as a shorthand for calling certain C APIs. In my experience a use case for `in_out_ptr` has never come up. Given the subtleties of its correct (and likely rare) usage, I'd be in favor of leaving this out of the library altogether. Especially given that the semantics of when 'release()' is called are not specified. I agree with the other comments that the customization point is not minimally complete. Ideally a customization point would not require one to replicate all the functionality of the class I'm customizing and, instead, only require a few general purpose functions that that interface can make use of. ## Implementation There are two implementations of `out_ptr`. The one called "clever" invokes undefined behavior as a means to squeeze out some extra performance. I do not think the performance overhead of using this library with the "non clever" implementation justifies the potential portability and and other risks associated with depending on undefined behavior working a particular way. It looks like "clever" mode was #ifdef'ed out, but removing it as cruft would improve maintainability of the implementation and remove the complexity of having an additional `core_out_ptr_t` class. The provided implementation works for smart pointers that follow conventions like the standard, but has some additional logic if the types happen to be `std::shared_ptr` or `boost::shared_ptr`. This hard coded special casing won't work with, say, a company specific shared pointer implementation. This relates to my earlier comment that the customization point should be simplified. ## Documentation The recommendation in the "caveats and caution" to not use out_ptr outside if/else conditionals goes a bit far in my opinion. It is common practice to make function calls that emit failure with return codes in conditionals, as in: ``` if (SQLITE_OK != sqlite3_open("test.db", boost::out_ptr::out_ptr(database, sqlite3_close))) { std::cout << "Problem opening the file"; } ``` For these cases it is safe to use `out_ptr` so I'd suggest rewording the recommendation to allow calls like this. "Almost all well-designed C APIs will set the user-provided output pointer argument to NULL/nullptr upon invalid parameters". This is a very difficult claim to make (what's the sample size?). I'd suggest changing "Almost all" to "Many". I don't understand what the issue is here with APIs not setting the out parameter on failure (which IMO is good practice especially as it relates to strong exception safety guarantees). These APIs have return codes that need to be inspected anyway. The reference documentation reads like a specification rather than what I would typically consider reference documentation. I'd expect to see it written with an intended audience of a casual user with examples and an organization that would be helpful for this reader (e.g.: purpose, description, examples, details) ## Tests The tests look reasonable and comprehensive although there seems to be some `#if 0` conditions that could either be cruft or perhaps the intent is the developer would manually change those to verify compilation failure. The tests are using the 'catch' library which is intended to be a submodule. Is there a precedence for using a third party library like this? For folks using Boost it could be painful to get another dependency approved to run all the Boost tests. It would be preferable IMO to use Boost.Test or something self contained. ## Usefulness I attempted to use the library with g++ 8.3.0 and clang 8.0.0. My example code is below: ```C++ #include <boost/out_ptr.hpp> #include <sqlite3.h> #include <iostream> int main() { std::shared_ptr<sqlite3> database; if (SQLITE_OK != sqlite3_open("test.db", boost::out_ptr::out_ptr(database, sqlite3_close))) { std::cout << "Problem opening the file"; } using Sqlite3Ptr = std::unique_ptr<sqlite3, decltype(&sqlite3_close)>; Sqlite3Ptr database2(nullptr, &sqlite3_close); if (SQLITE_OK != sqlite3_open("test.db", boost::out_ptr::out_ptr(database2, sqlite3_close))) { std::cout << "Problem opening the file"; } } ``` With this `Makefile` ```c++ main : main.cpp g++ -I/home/dsankel/code/out_ptr/include -o $@ $< `pkg-config sqlite3 --cflags --libs` .PHONY: clean clean: $(RM) main ``` I didn't run into any issues. Everything worked okay. I think this library would be handy for wrapping C libraries like sqlite. # How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? I spent a few hours on this review. I read through all the documentation, did a cursory review of the code, and came up with the example above. # Minor things * Copyright notices need to have a person's real name to have legal benefits. * In `aout_ptr.adoc` the examples link goes to the overview page. * Some grammar errors in the "C function calls are indeterminately sequenced..." paragraph. * When referring to a Boost library in free flowing text, the correct form is Boost.LibraryName with the same font as the surrounding text.

5 5

out_ptr review is extended until Wednesday, July 10
by Zach Laine 29 Jun '19

29 Jun '19

We don't have enough reviews yet, so we're extending the review by two weeks. Please review this small and useful library! >From the original announcement: The formal review of JeanHeyd Meneide's out_ptr library starts Sunday, June 16th and ends on Wednesday, June 26th. out_ptr is a library for making it easy to interoperate between smart pointers and traditional C-style initialization and allocation interfaces. It also enables doing so in a way that allows library authors to opt into speed optimizations for their smart pointers that give them performance equivalent to typical C pointers (see benchmarks ( https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/blob/master/docs/out_ptr/benchmarks.adoc) and the Standard C++ proposal for more details). Online docs can be found here: https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/blob/master/docs/out_ptr.adoc The GitHub repository is available here: https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr Also, there is an associated standards proposal: https://thephd.github.io/vendor/future_cxx/papers/d1132.html We encourage your participation in this review. At a minimum, please state: - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost - Your name - Your knowledge of the problem domain You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information: - What is your evaluation of the library's: * Design * Implementation * Documentation * Tests * Usefulness - Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s)? * What was the experience? Any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? All issues discussed during this review will be tracked on the library's GitHub issue tracker at https://github.com/ThePhD/out_ptr/issues. Zach

5 7

[accumulators] Offer to help with maintenance
by Cromwell Enage 29 Jun '19

29 Jun '19

Hi, everyone! I'm offering to help maintain Boost.Accumulators and have already e-mailed Eric Niebler regarding my intentions. With the deadline for Boost release 1.71 fast approaching, I can take steps to ensure that Boost.Accumulators is in a usable state. I also have a few ideas on how to update and improve Boost.Accumulators (one of them being to make use of variadic templates), but they can wait until after the release for further discussion. Very respectfully, Cromwell D. Enage

1 0

Re: [boost] [logic] Boost::logic (tribool?) actively developed?
by Jacob Lidman 28 Jun '19

28 Jun '19

> It has resently updated to support a change in gcc compilers. So I > would say it's actively maintained. I never asked if it was actively maintained but rather if the library is actively developed, i.e. are new features added, improvements in documentation... > I would say it seems stagnant because it's always been as close to perfection as a > library can be. The reason why the library appear close to perfect is because it clearly has minimal number of features. Improvements can be made to accommodate new needs, e.g. by including other logics. > see https://github.com/boostorg/logic As I mentioned this is the repo for the tribool library, at least that was the name prior to boost 1.70.0

2 1

Some out_ptr concerns
by Glen Fernandes 28 Jun '19

28 Jun '19

Thanks to JeanHeyd for going through the Boost review process, and to Zach for managing the review. Briefly: I do not have enough reasons to recommend acceptance for out_ptr just yet --- in its current form. (I'd like to see it return for a new review when the feedback from this review shapes the design so that some of these concerns are resolved). Second: This excludes "inout_ptr" (for which I had even more concerns) and just focusing on "out_ptr" - which is the simpler and more common use case of the two. Below comparing out_ptr vs the hand written code that a user would write to use a /typical/ C out-pointer API with smart pointers, this is what I'm comparing: [Typical code user would write]: Type* raw; Result result = TheCApi(args..., &raw); if (!Success(result)) { // failure (e.g. return, or branch and handle error) } Smart<Type, Deleter> smart(raw, etc...); [What happens with out_ptr now]: /* 'smart' already has to exist here before TheCApi is called. Either as Smart<Type, Deleter> smart; or Smart<Type, Deleter> smart(nullptr, etc...); depending on deleter */ /* User writes: Result result = TheCApi(args..., out_ptr(smart)); // or Result result = TheCApi(args..., out_ptr(smart, etc...)); depending on deleter */ Type* raw = nullptr; Result result = TheCApi(args..., &raw); if (raw != nullptr) { smart.reset(raw); // or smart.reset(raw, etc...); depending on deleter } if (!Success(result)) { // failure (e.g. return, or branch and handle error) } Concern 1. Having to materialize the smart pointer before TheCApi is called. Ordinarily this might be fine for some smart pointers and stateful deleters, but it may not be for others. Concern 2. The original user code initializes the smart pointer based on Success(result). The out_ptr version would do so based on whether the raw out pointer was changed to something non-null by TheCApi. This might be fine for some cases, but it may not be for others. That it isn't the same as fundamental logic as the user code bothers me, though. Concern 3. The equivalent of the hand written user code is less overhead. Personally I'm of the opinion that maybe this doesn't matter too, but here the author does say he has users who cannot abide by it, and that this facility needs support from e.g. std::unique_ptr to be viable. (And this leads to concern 4 below). [I'm not a fan of needing unique_ptr implementations to add support for this to make it comparable to some user's hand written code]. Concern 4. The UB optimization that the author wrote because of Concern 3 is a real concern to him. The UB optimization has no place in Boost, and one of which doesn't even work with many C++ library vendors' unique_ptr. [Fortunately the Boost reviews have already echoed this sentiment and I believe this is going away]. Concern 5. Supporting other custom smart pointers requires effectively re-implementing out_ptr_t by specialization. I have come to see this as not viable. [Already mentioned in other reviews] Concern 6. C APIs where the deleter (its state, logic, etc.) are governed by some other result from TheCApi. This is can be worked around in many cases, but the workaround is clumsy. Or insupportable, in other cases. i.e. The stateful deleter is always initialized with 'etc...' either before-hand via Smart<Type> smart(nullptr, etc...) or at call site with: TheCApi(args, out_ptr(etc...)); before analyzing other results of calling TheCApi. (The 7th concern I had made notes about pre-review has already been eliminated, when the unconditionally noexcept destructor is now only conditionally noexcept). Other thoughts: The suggestion by Emil lead to an interesting alternative idea to this problem domain, but I had no time to fully explore it. I don't think it would address all of these concerns. It has some other greater appeal, e.g. a way to call C APIs that materializes the smart pointers as results (along with C API return value) of an "Invoke-style" thing. Or even a way to transform a C API with out-pointers into a C++ callable that returns smart pointers (along with C API return value) via a "Bind-style" thing. Glen

1 0

out_ptr -- alternatives
by Andrzej Krzemienski 28 Jun '19

28 Jun '19

Hi Everyone, This is not a review of out_ptr, but I wanted to share my thoughts about the motivation for this library. I do not recall any time from my programming experience where I was in need of passing a smart pointer to a T** interface, so maybe this is why I cannot appreciate the value of out_ptr. On the other hand, if I need to use a library with a C API, or other non-C++ API (this happens when someone wants to naively port a Java library to C++ and keep the Java interface) the first thing I do is to wrap the API functions into a RAII class. It takes some time up front, but then whenever it is used, I do not have to deal with the problems of the old API. `T**` is only one of the problems. The motivation focuses on only easily passing smart pointers to `init(T**)` functions, but it does not address the problem of adapting the error reporting of `init(T**)`to the error reporting of my program. I would never want to only solve the former problem and omit the latter. Also, I would never want to represent a handle to a resource with a smart pointer, as I do not want to voluntarily inject the null-pointer state that I now have to take care of everywhere. Instead I would prefer a dedicated type that is not default-constructible, where one really needs to try hard to get the special no-resource state (e.g. by moving from and not destroying the object). What I am missing from the motivation of out_ptr is the comparison with a full RAII wrapper solution. You can argue that the scope of out_ptr is just different: provide interpoperation between `init(T**)`functions and smart pointers. But I would argue that this latter goal is wrong. In fact, I am concerned that we might be encouraging a bad programming style: "need to work with init(T**) APIs? use shared_ptr." instead of promoting RAII wrappers that directly wrap the resource. Does anyone else feel the same? Or am I missing something about the problem domain? Anyway, I think that this problem should be covered in the documentation. Regards, &rzej;

6 8