- Boost - lists.boost.org

ulas / cw 8.3
by Stefan Slapeta 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Is there a particular reason why ublas is marked unusable for cw 8.3? Stefan

1 0

[review] Formal review of the Smart Container library - 5 days left reminder
by Pavol Droba 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Hi All, This the the reminder, that there are only 5 days left for the Smart Containers review. Please post your reviews if you find this library interesting. Best Regards, Pavol Droba Following is the copy of the invitation message: The review of the Smart Container library, written by Thorsten Ottosen starts today (September 26th, 2004) and runs for 10 days (until October 5th, 2004). The latest version of the library can be found at http://boost-sandbox.sourceforge.net/smart_container.zip or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/pointer%20container/smart_contain… The package contains all you need to sucessfuly use the library with the Boost version 1.31 or later, however library tests require the latest Boost.Test, that is available from the main Boost CVS. What does the library provide? The library documentation states: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever a programmer wants to have a container of pointers to heap-allocated objects, there is usually only one exception-safe way: to make a container of smart pointers like boost::shared_ptr. This approach is suboptimal if 1. the stored objects are not shared, but owned exclusively, or 2. the overhead implied by smart pointers is inappropriate This library therefore provides standard-like containers that are for storing heap-allocated or cloned objects (or in case of a map, the mapped object must be a heap-allocated or cloned object). For each of the standard containers there is a smart container equivalent that takes ownership of the objects in an exception safe manner. In this respect the library is intended to solve the so-called polymorphic class problem. The advantages of smart containers are 1. Exception-safe and fool proof pointer storage and manipulation. 2. Notational convenience compared to the use of containers of pointers. 3. Can be used for types that are neither Assignable nor Copy Constructible. 4. No memory-overhead as containers of smart pointers can have (see 11 and 12). 5. Usually faster than using containers of smart pointers (see 11 and 12). 6. The interface is slightly changed towards the domain of pointers instead of relying on the normal value-based interface. For example, now it is possible for pop_back() to return the removed element. The disadvantages are 1. Less flexible than containers of smart pointers <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< As an example of how the new containers look like, consider that <code> typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> foo_ptr; std::vector<foo_ptr> vec; vec.push_back( foo_ptr( new Foo ) ); (*vec.begin())->bar(); </code> now becomes <code> boost::ptr_vector<Foo> vec; vec.push_back( new Foo ); vec.begin()->bar(); </code> In your reviews, please include the answers for the following questions: * 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. Also, in the documentation you will find questions from the submitter to the reviewer; whenever you feel you have something to contribute on these issues, please don't hessitate to include that in your review. Thank you, Pavol Droba, review manager for the Smart Containers library.

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: Re: Long toolset names
by Stefan Seefeld 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

> From: Tony Juricic [mailto:tonygeek@yahoo.com] > Sent: October 1, 2004 12:03 > Even MS IDE has problems in some cases (very inconsistent) when space > characters are present but I thought that in most Wintel and also UNIX > command tools these issues are easily solved with adding quotes? well, that sounds simpler as it is. It's all those little details such as one shell eating quotes, another passing them through when called in a nested way that makes it really hairy. It's a can of worms that can easily be avoided by not using spaces in file names. Regards, Stefan

1 0

White spaces in regression
by Victor A. Wagner Jr. 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

As part of my script before I run any of the regression code, I delete all the *.xml files from the results directory. This is done because if there is a _severe_ crash while running the regressions, the *.xml files will still exist when things are "collected". I've been told that it is the responsibility of process_jam_log to create these, BUT: C:\Projects\boost\tools\regression\build>C:\Projects\boost\tools\build\jam_src\bin.ntx86\bjam.exe -sTOOLS=vc7.1 ...found 481 targets... Traceback (most recent call last): File "regression.py", line 712, in ? commands[ command ]( **accept_args( args ) ) File "regression.py", line 356, in setup build_if_needed( process_jam_log, pjl_toolset, toolsets ) File "regression.py", line 288, in build_if_needed raise 'Failed to find "%s" after build.' % tool[ 'build_path' ] Failed to find "C:\Projects\boost\bin\boost\tools\regression\build\process_jam_log.exe\vc7.1\release\process_jam_log.exe" after build. the reason it cannot find it there is because somehow it got built here instead: C:\Projects\boost\bin\boost\tools\regression\build\process_jam_log.exe\vc7.1\release\threading-multi\process_jam_log.exe I don't know if actually finding the correct version will solve the white space problem, but this clearly isn't correct. Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"

1 0

[Signals] New regressions
by Aleksey Gurtovoy 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Doug, It seems that your last checkin broke things on a number of platforms -- see http://tinyurl.com/69npt. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering

2 2

Compilation problem with boost on SunCC (Forte 6.2 & 8)
by Puverle, Tomas (IT) 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Please find attached a small program and a the resulting compilation errors on SunCC. This occurs in iterator_facade.hpp, operator != (), calling to interator_core_access::equal. I have tracked this down to the following problem: f(mpl::true_); f(mpl::false_); f(is_convertible<>()); //will not work is_convertible<> derives from mpl::bool<>, however it seems that a bug in the compiler prevents it from converting to mpl::true_/mpl::false_ in the above scenario (and in the program attached) A workaround for this is to change it to the following: f(mpl::true_); f(mpl::false_); f(mpl::bool_<is_convertible<>::value>()); Presumably this will be present in other places but this is the only one our developers have hit so far. Thanks, Tom -------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

1 0

1.32 Status?
by Brian Braatz 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

I am anxiously awaiting 1.32 as there are features there that I need. I am holding off though on using them until that is officially released. My question is - is there a target timeframe as to when 1.32 looks like it will be ready. My Suggestion would be that the website (boost.org) have a place on the front page that has the current rough timeframe for when 1.32 may be ready. Thanks Brian Braatz

3 3

[Thread] The last step
by Aleksey Gurtovoy 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Gentlemen, Seems like we've just cleared up Boost.Thread failures/regressions on all but one required toolset! See http://tinyurl.com/6h56q. Congratulations on the great job to everyone involved. You can probably guess what I'm about to ask -- can we do something about Intel 8.0/Linux failures? Looking at the output below (from http://tinyurl.com/6mnzn) it seems to me that the test was attempted to be linked against *both* GCC and Intel runtimes: /usr/lib/libc.a(strtol.o)(.text+0x50): In function `strtol': ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : multiple definition of `strtol' /opt/intel_cc_80/lib/libcprts.a(strtol.o)(.text+0xea): first defined here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ld: Warning: size of symbol `strtol' changed from 24 in /opt/intel_cc_80/lib/libcprts.a(strtol.o) to 73 in icc -g -openmp -static -o "../bin/boost/libs/thread/test/test_barrier_lib.test/ intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/test_barrier_lib" -L../bin/boost/libs/thread/build/libboost_thread.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi -L../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi "../bin/boost/libs/thread/test/test_barrier_lib.test/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/test_barrier.o" "../bin/boost/libs/thread/test/test_barrier_lib.test/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/tss_null.o" ../bin/boost/libs/thread/build/libboost_thread.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/libboost_thread-intel80-m t-sd-1_32.a ../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_ test_framework.a ../bin/boost/libs/thread/build/libboost_thread.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/libboost_thread-intel80-m t-sd-1_32.a ../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/intel-8.0-linux/debug/runtime-link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_ test_framework.a -lrt Could somebody comment further/take a deeper look at this? -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: [shared_ptr] Interlocked* - possible bug?
by Ben Hutchings 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov(a)web.de> wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > [...] > > If atomic_read > > returns 0 that means the use count has dropped to 0 [*] and can > > never increase again, so it must be the latest version. Otherwise > > weak_ptr makes a second test that is properly protected. So it can > > never use an old value. > > > > [*] I think this is right but I'm not certain that it can't return a > > 0 that the processor read during creation of an object that > > uses enable_shared_from_this. > > What makes you uncertain? Simply not having thought enough about it. Now that I have done, I realise that it's impossible for a thread to use a weak_ptr to an object without either (1) constructing a shared_ptr to it, setting the use count to be non-zero, or (2) synchronising with another thread that constructs the shared_ptr and/or weak_ptr, which should provide an appropriate memory barrier that will prevent the use of any invalid pre-fetched value of the memory containing the use count. > > Having said all that, I feel the naming of functions may give a > > false sense of generality and encapsulation when they actually > > only work in the way they are being used currently. > > You mean that > > bool expired() { > return lock(); > } > > is better? Not really. I will expand in my mail to Peter Dimov.

3 17

Re:Re: [boost] Output formatters: different approaches
by Robert Ramey 01 Oct '04

01 Oct '04

>Vladimir Prus wrote: >> During the review of the output formatters library, there were suggested >> several alternative approaches. For example, Gennadiy thinks the library is >> too complicated, and Hartmut suggests creating a library dual to Spirit -- >> which would be extra powerfull. > >> That's not all. Independently, I've talked with Vaclav Blazek, who's the >> author of the Teng text template engine (http://teng.sourceforge.net/) which >> is also a similiar domain -- it's too about formatting objects. >I will try to take a look at it next week. >> >> It would be great if we had some common foundation, so that I could output >> ptr_vector<Function> using both a simple formatter, or a flexible one, or >> even some template engine. > > >> 2. A mechanism to iterate over elements of composite type. After some though, >> I believe that the mechanism should be boost::serializaton. >This sounds nice, but I don't know how achievable it is. >Basically, when writing a composite type, you might want to write things >in-between. Like, for a pair, you might want to write: > [first, second] >or ><<first | second>> > (where first and second are the members of the pair) >Same goes for each composite type. >I'm not very familiar with boost::serialize - still it is something to >think about ;) The serialization library provides formatting/recovery for all composite types with no special effort by the programmer. This is usually suitable for the type of output file being used. In cases where it isn't, the output/input can be overloaded on a type by type basis. In practice few have found it necessary or valuable to do this. >> The idea of the library, as I see it, is to provide object serialization, but >> - without the overhead serialization library has >> - with extra layout tweaks >Yes, it would be nice. For objects of the type being discussed, (i.e. no pointers, no class versioning, no memory tracking of duplicates, etc) the serialization library has no extra runtime overhead. I would be very surprised if the serialization library did not result in smaller and faster code than the libraries being discussed. >> I don't see why it's necessary to reinvent the object traversal code which is >> already in boost::serialization. For example, boost::serialization support >> scoped_ptr. It would not make sense to add separate support for scoped_ptr in >> outfmt. The serialization library has all that and much, much more. >I would need to delve further into boost::serialize to have an oppoinion >- and the unfortunate thing is that I won't have any available time soon :( Too bad, it would have consumed much less time than has been already spent on this topic If function output formatters is helpful for making output more easily presentable, fine. Though G. Rozenthal's, experiment makes me doubt this. If the purpose is to save and restore the state of some assortment of class instances - it's the same as the serialization system and should evaluated as an alternative with a full blown comparison. I believe the demos and documentation in the serialization package show that it to be much, much easier to use than the proposed library for this purpose. Robert Ramey

3 2