- Boost - lists.boost.org

typeof for vintage compilers
by Peder Holt 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

Hi. I started working on implementing remove_bounds for the VC 6.5 compiler, and found that the source had all the similarities of Arkadiys typeof implementation, so I have implemented typeof for compilers not supporting partial specialization. I took many ideas from Arkadiys implementation, but I had to rewrite the encoding part from scratch. The library (apart from being incomplete with respect to function types etc) has the following key elements in place: encoding/decoding of: -fundamental types -template types -modifiers (*&const volatile []) The library has a few improvements that could perhaps be implemented in Arkadiys typeof implementation as well: The max depth of an expression increased from the mpl limit of 60 to the preprocessor limit of 256 template expressions containing integral values are allowed The template: template<typename T,unsigned long V> struct X {}; can be exposed to typeof in the following way: BOOST_TYPEOF_DEFINE_TEMPLATE(X,2,(typename,unsigned long)) (VC 7.1 had some problems preprocessing the code needed to make this work.) The source is available at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/typeof_vintage.zip I have compiled the library for VC 6.5 and 7.0. They both fail when the depth of an expression gets too large, with the error message: fatal error C1045: compiler limit : linkage specifications nested too deeply. -- Peder Holt

2 3

Re: RE: [boost] [minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95
by JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

----- Mensaje original ----- De: "Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental(a)thomson.com> Fecha: Viernes, Agosto 27, 2004 6:47 pm Asunto: RE: [boost] [minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95 > Which file? My bad :) The file is libs/algorithm/minmax/test/minmax_test.cpp > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org > > [boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of joaquin(a)tid.es > > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:14 AM > > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > > Subject: [boost] [minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95 > > > > > > GCC 2.95 has problems supporting using declarations inside > > functions, as > > > > indicated by BOOST_FUNCTION_SCOPE_USING_DECLARATION_BREAKS_ADL. > > > > This affects a minmax test in this compiler. The following > > trivial patch moves a using directive to global scope and > > solves the issue. This would make it all green for minmax > > regression tests under every platform considered. > > > > OK to commit? > > > > Joaquín M López Muñoz > > Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo > > > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo

1 0

RE: [boost] [minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95
by Rozental, Gennadiy 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

Which file? > -----Original Message----- > From: boost-bounces(a)lists.boost.org > [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of joaquin(a)tid.es > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:14 AM > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Subject: [boost] [minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95 > > > GCC 2.95 has problems supporting using declarations inside > functions, as > > indicated by BOOST_FUNCTION_SCOPE_USING_DECLARATION_BREAKS_ADL. > > This affects a minmax test in this compiler. The following > trivial patch moves a using directive to global scope and > solves the issue. This would make it all green for minmax > regression tests under every platform considered. > > OK to commit? > > Joaquín M López Muñoz > Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo >

1 0

Re: Copyright
by Vladimir Prus 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

David Abrahams wrote: > Vladimir Prus <ghost(a)cs.msu.su> writes: > > Could you clarify? To be exactly specific, if I have a file with the > > following content, as a part of Boost.Build test: > > > > int main() { return 0; } > > > > why does it need copyright? > > Files without copyrights make corporate lawyers nervous, and that's a > barrier to adoption. If everything in Boost is copyrighted, there > won't be any problem with dropping a Boost release on a corporate > server. *Any* file without copyright? What about 'boost.css' or 'c++boost.gif' for example? What about BoostBook DTD, which has the following: Copyright (c) 2002 by Peter Simons <simons(a)computer.org>. All Rights Reserved. What about tools/regression/xsl_reports/merger/__init__.py And, for a completely interesting question, whose copyright should be on 'status/explicit-failures-markup.xml'? Of all the authors? The reason I'm asking all this is that it seems that a lot effort was already spend to add copyrights, and more is likely to be spend and I find it hard to believe that lawyers will examine every single file of Boost. Maybe, just headers and the code which goes into compiled libraries really need to be license-clean. - Volodya

2 1

[program_options + test] Intel problem
by Vladimir Prus 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

The error message in http://tinyurl.com/6ynh9 says that some symbols are multiply declared. The error messages refer to Boost.Test, and also some compiler library, and is hard to understand. Could any expert take a look? - Volodya

7 11

a problem with lambda expressions
by zaufi 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

Hi, everybody! We've got a problem with a following code that does not compile: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <list> #include <algorithm> #include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp> int main() { using namespace boost::lambda; std::list<std::list<int> > l; bool some_are_empty = false; std::for_each(l.begin(), l.end(), var(some_are_empty) = bind(&std::list<int>::empty, _1) || some_are_empty); return 0; } ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compiler (gcc 3.4.1) gives the following errors: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lambda-problem.cc: In function `int main()': lambda-problem.cc:13: error: no match for 'operator||' in 'boost::lambda::bind(const Arg1&, const Arg2&) [with Arg1 = bool (std::list<int, std::allocator<int> >::*)() const, Arg2 = boost::lambda::lambda_functor<boost::lambda::placeholder<1> >](((const boost::lambda::lambda_functor<boost::lambda::placeholder<1> >&) (+boost::lambda::<unnamed>::_1))) || some_are_empty' lambda-problem.cc:13: note: candidates are: operator||(bool, bool) <built-in> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can anybody shed a light on what are we doing wrong in this example?

3 2

discrepancy between regression tests and manual testing
by Bronek Kozicki 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

While examining some error in regression tests I have noticeed that this error does not appear when I'm starting bjam in "test" directory of library. It does however appear in regression test. Reason for this discrepancy is that regression tests are always started from boost/status/Jamfile , and this Jamfile contains number of settings for specific tests ; thus when test started from different Jamfile (like the one in test directory) these settings are not applied, effectively both Jamfiles produce different results. I hope it's possible to move all these library-specific settings into specific Jamfiles in test directories? Right now it might be quite difficult to fix regression errors for someone not willing to run full regression tests. B.

1 0

Re: mingw test results
by John Maddock 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

> >I've been looking at your regression test results for mingw: > > > >config_test and all the regex tests are failing with a runtime exit code of > >128, however they pass for me here, and for some of the other testers as > >well (see the Bronek Kozicki results). Do you have any idea what's > >happening here? If you can get a stack backtrace for the problem that's > >happening in config_test that would be a big help. > > I re-compiled the test (config) using dev-cpp (which is the mingw I'm > using) and ran the test manually AND with the debugger > error_count (and what gets returned) is clearly 0 in both runs. > > apparently there is some hiccup w/ the interface to the boost test fixture. > I'll be happy to debug there if someone can give me a hint where to start. Not sure, but you could try: bjam -a -d2 config_test which may indicate some kind of difference between what bjam is doing, and what your manual builds are doing; then again it may not :-( Thanks! John.

1 0

Re:[boost] Re: [1.32 Plan] Stalled forever?
by Robert Ramey 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

>> The branch should occur now. MPL update can go into the next release. >> Or you can see it a slightly different way. Branch and release 1.32 now. >> Rebranch and release 1.32 when MPL update has been added and any >> related issues resolved. >Please be patient. >Aleksey is having a hard time getting finished and the release date has >slipped; it's true. That said, the very existence of this release is due >to our need to have a Boost release with an updated MPL for >http://www.boost-consulting.com/mplbook. The CD for the book has to be >final by early next month, and there's no possible way we can do two >releases before that time. The schedule is getting increasingly tight; I >just hope we can do _one_. >I considered what would happen if we branched now and Aleksey integrated >his changes into the release branch. It seems apparent that it would only >slow the release down further, since the changes would have to be >integrated into the trunk, too. This would be even worse than the current situation. My real question was what is the downside of including MPL in release 1.33 rather than 1.32 ? The important thing is the release date - not the release number. I believe that the rest of concentrating on a bug free release of 1.32 while others get MPL ready for the NEXT release will result in a sooner release date for the current library + MPL than otherwise. So my suggestion is: Branch 1.32 rc now - make only bug fixes. Actually at this point they aren't really bugs so much as accommodation to different platforms, tool configuration scripts. Etc. Define 1.33 as 1.32 + new MPL and release it as soon as its ready - I would envision this coming out a short time (4-8 weeks? - whatever) after 1.32. If MPL slips in with no ripple effect - well no harm done. If MPL ripples through creating a bunch of new test failure, still no harm done, 1.32 is still available. This would in effect de-couple the release progress of the boost library as a whole from any issues associated with a particular library. I didn't not think that I would be able to make the release for the serialization library - indeed - I couldn't make the original one. I was prepared to work at my own pace and upload a "serialization add-in" compatible with the latest release. It would be then up to the manager of the next to decide whether it was worthy to be included in the next "boost release" Actually, all boost libraries - including an MPL update, should take this approach. Robert Ramey

5 4

[minmax] patch to solve issue in GCC 2.95
by Joaquín Mª López Muñoz 27 Aug '04

27 Aug '04

GCC 2.95 has problems supporting using declarations inside functions, as indicated by BOOST_FUNCTION_SCOPE_USING_DECLARATION_BREAKS_ADL. This affects a minmax test in this compiler. The following trivial patch moves a using directive to global scope and solves the issue. This would make it all green for minmax regression tests under every platform considered. OK to commit? Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo 46a47,48 > using namespace boost; > 50d51 < using namespace boost;

1 0