- Boost - lists.boost.org

program-options, --switch and --no-switch
by Neal D. Becker 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

Any suggestion on how to implement the common gnu idiom: --switch and --no-switch? bool_switch seems perfect for implementing --switch, but what about --no-switch (which should set switch_value to false)?

2 3

Strange Linux regressions
by Aleksey Gurtovoy 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

A number of libraries fail with various versions of GCC and Intel with the following output (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4q93w) g++: Internal compiler error: program as got fatal signal 11 and (http://tinyurl.com/3s92x) icpcbin: error: Fatal error in /opt/intel/compiler70/ia32/bin/mcpcom, terminated by segmentation violation Martin, is this the dreadful memory problem that you've been talking about? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering

3 4

[1.32 Release] Draft tarballs are available
by Aleksey Gurtovoy 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

Draft zip/tarballs for the 1.32 release are available from the following locations: http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.tar.bz2 http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.tar.gz http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.zip These are NOT the tarballs that will be released; rather, they are the first probe aiming to uncover whatever problems we are still unaware of (including problems with archives preparation), or, if there are none, to confirm that pending a few issues below, we are finally ready to release. For your convenience, the unpacked contents is also available online at http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/1_32_0_draft/. You can consider this to be a draft version of post-1.32 Boost website. KNOWN ISSUES ------------ The following is a list of known issues present in the tarballs which grant them their draft status: 1) A small number of unmarked test failures (but no regressions). 2) A small number of broken links as follows: doc/html/date_time/doxy.html: broken link: ../../../boost/date_time/dst_transition_day_generators.hpp, broken link: ../../../boost/date_time/local_time_base.hpp doc/html/date_time/posix_time.html: broken link: ../../../libs/date_time/doc/time_duration_inherit.png doc/html/libraries.html: broken link: ../boost.pdf libs/libraries.htm: broken link: ../boost.docbook, broken link: ../boost.fo, broken link: ../boost.pdf libs/numeric/conversion/doc/converter.html: broken link: udt_support.html libs/numeric/conversion/doc/converter_policies.html: broken link: udt_support.html 3) No documentation in PDF format ("boost.pdf"), due to some build issues (I'll post separate email on this). 4) Placeholder pages in place of the revoked pre-1.32 MPL documentation. If you encounter any issues that are not in the above list, please report them here! TESTING ------- To run regression tests on the archives, you need to: 1) Grab the archive for your platform from one of the above locations. 2) Grab the latest "regression.py" from http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/regression.py 3) Put the archive and "regression.py" in the same directory and invoke the latter with the following command line: python regression.py --local=<archive name> --runner=<your runner id> --toolsets=<your toolsets> [<more options as needed>] For example, python regression.py --local=boost_1_32_0.zip --runner=metacomm --toolsets=msvc,vc7,vc-7_1,cw-8_3 --pjl-toolset=vc-7_1 The results will be automatically uploaded to ftp://fx.meta-comm.com/boost-regression/boost_1_32_0/. Finally, thanks in advance to everybody who will be looking at this! -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering

14 37

RE: [boost] Re: [1.32 Release] Draft tarballs are available
by Stefan Seefeld 02 Nov '04

02 Nov '04

> From: Aleksey Gurtovoy [mailto:agurtovoy@meta-comm.com] > Sent: November 1, 2004 10:04 > > No unix source package I ever downloaded had read-only files. > > Could our long-time unix users confirm/negate this experience? youp. > > That gives no protection, really. > > It prevents you from accidental editing/deletion. As a machine's administrator I would explicitely set the permissions (and ownership, of course) of all files, anyways. > Completely unlike it, IMO. In the above situation, it's a CVS > checkout, > you are a developer, and editing is a normal workflow. Everything is > exactly the opposite with the tarball. I don't quite agree. The 'developer' role has meaning only in a given context. Read: It's not because I shouldn't modify code in the boost repository that I shouldn't be able to mess with my copy of a release tarball. Regards, Stefan

3 2

Dynamic pluggable factories?
by Boost Rookie 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Hi, is there anything in Boost which resembles the dynamic pluggable factories as described in the article "Industrial Strength Pluggable Factories" written by Timothy R. Culp and published in the October 1999 issue of C++ Report (available online http://www.javareport.com/joop/crarticle.asp?ID=1520)? If there is no such thing, has something like it been discussed? dismissed? I for one can see a real need for it! /br __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com

4 3

[1.32 Release] Second draft of the tarballs is available
by Misha Bergal 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

Fixed privileges: * Unix: files/directories are writable/readable by owner and readable by others. Consequenty, regression.py now is able to correctly unpack the tarballs on Unix systems. * Windows: all files are writable The zip/tarballs are available from the following locations: http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.tar.bz2 http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.tar.gz http://www.meta-comm.com/engineering/boost/boost_1_32_0.zip -- Misha Bergal MetaCommunications Engineering

1 0

Re: [boost] Draft tarball & multi - index
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: Craig Carr <craig.carr(a)perform-sol.com> Fecha: Lunes, Noviembre 1, 2004 7:39 pm Asunto: [boost] Draft tarball & multi - index > I don't know if this is valid here, but all none of the examples > in the multi-index library examples compile with vc7.1. All produce > internal compiler errors except basic.cpp > > Craig. Hi Craig, Boost.MultiIndex ought to work with that compiler. Have you checked the following? http://boost- consulting.com/boost/libs/multi_index/doc/compiler_specifics.html#msvc_7 1 If you haven't done so, please turn /Gm off. Please report whether this solves the problem. Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

2 1

too much typing
by Neal D. Becker 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

I'm always writing (e.g.) std::vector<double> out (size); std::transform (in.begin(), in.end(), out.begin(), func); Wouldn't it be nice to have versions of the std algorithms that worked like: template<typename out_cont_t, typename in_cont_t, typename UnaryOperation> inline out_cont_t transform_r (const in_cont_t& in, UnaryOperation u) { out_cont_t out (boost::size (in)); std::transform (boost::begin (in), boost::end (in), boost::begin (out), u); return out; } Then you can say: std::vector<double> out = transform_r<std::vector<double> > (in, func); That is, the first template parameter is the desired return container type, and the algorithm constructs the return value into it. Since constructors can be elided, I think this may be just as efficient as the original, or maybe better. OK, perhaps it looks like I didn't save much typing, but when you chain function calls you save a lot.

5 4

Draft tarball & multi - index
by Craig Carr 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

I don't know if this is valid here, but all none of the examples in the multi-index library examples compile with vc7.1. All produce internal compiler errors except basic.cpp Craig.

1 0

Re: [boost] [filesystem] regressions for operations_test
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 01 Nov '04

01 Nov '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: Beman Dawes <bdawes(a)acm.org> Fecha: Domingo, Octubre 31, 2004 11:03 pm Asunto: Re: [boost] [filesystem] regressions for operations_test > At 03:56 PM 10/31/2004, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote: > >Hi, > > > >msvc, msvc-stlport, iw-7_1-vc6 > >and iw-7_1-vc6-stlp-4_5_3 currently fail this > >test (see for instance http://tinyurl.com/4xo4a) > >I don't know for sure, but I've got the hunch this > >might be related with the fact that 2004 is > >a leap year and today we've had a 1-hour adjustment > >in some countries due to the daylight saving policy. > >These two facts combined might yield an offset > >outside the expected range. > >Just wanted to note this in case it might ring a > >bell for somebody. > > Or it might just be because offsets cross the daylight savings > time > boundary. > Well, that's what I was saying. The leap year and the cross-daylight saving issues combined will yield a time difference of 366*24*3600+3600 seconds, off the expected value by 1 hour. > I'll wait until the tests have cycled again, and then take a look. > If my theory's correct, these tests will revert to normal by November 2. This phenomenon will happen again 2008, October 26 to 28, and 2012 October 28 to 30. In 2016, however, the cross-daylight offset plays on the subtracting raher than the adding side, so the tests won't fail :) Excuse my indulgence on this silly issue. Joaquín M Lópeez Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0