- Boost - lists.boost.org

RE: [boost] min, max, GCC 2.95.3, and STLport
by Rozental, Gennadiy 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

> Are there any other failures regarding min/max you've noticed, or is it just the three tests I've mentioned? As far as I see everything still failing: See here http://tinyurl.com/yq9rw Gennadiy.

2 1

BOOST on Integrity RTOS
by Gaetano Mendola 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

Hi all, anyone know if the boost library is available for Green Hills C++ compiler ? I need to port an application that use the boost library on a Integrity RTOS ( that use that compiler ). Regards Gaetano Mendola

1 0

RE:RE: RE: [boost] Does anyone have an is_virtual_base_and_derived ?
by Robert Ramey 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

I'm beginning to see that now. In my test case the situation has been much confused by the fact that b1 has/didn't have a virtual destructor which in turn makes it possible/impossible. Oh and running on different compilers in debug/release mode changed behavior as well which left me totally confused. So I'm working through my confusion. >> > I wrote that very thing a year or so ago for the purpose of >> testing if a >> > base pointer type can be statically downcast to a derived type. >> >> My problem exactly ! >I should warn you that this isn't quite enough information to test for >static downcastability in all cases. Take the following example: >struct b1 {}; >struct b2 : b1 {}; >struct b3 : virtual b2 {}; >Here, b1 is not a virtual base of b3, but a downcast from b1* to b3* is >still impossible. I don't believe there is any way to test for this case >without compiler assistance. Robert Ramey

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: Re: VC7.1 Building...
by Brian Carlson 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

> > >I would start over if I were you. Open a Command Propmpt window. Change > > >directory to you boost_1_31_0 directory. Type the following _exactly_ > > >as > > >shown: > > > > > > bjam -sTOOLS=vc7.1 stage > > > > I did, but I'm using 1.29, not 1.31 That might be the problem....hmm > I'd think bjam changed significantly since 1.29? I don't think the build > instructions noted above are valid for pre 1.3x. Any reason your not using > 1.31? I'm using a third party api, that requires boost. I don't have a direct requirement. I wanted to move to vc7.1, and that's when I started to have link problems, "unresolved external... function0". I hoped that rebuilding 1.29 in vc7.1 would take care of the problem. I'm getting ready to try the api with 1.31. We'll see. Any thoughts would be arreciated. Thanks, Brian

2 1

RE: [boost] FYI: Trolltech's new generic containers
by Max Khesin 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

Hi Neal, What do you like about these? -----Original Message----- From: Neal D. Becker [mailto:ndbecker2@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 2:36 PM To: boost(a)lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] FYI: Trolltech's new generic containers This may be of some interest: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/containers.html _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

Re: [boost] Re: Pretty Good Initialization Library
by brangdon＠cix.compulink.co.uk 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

In-Reply-To: <200407072103.i67L3Jk28273(a)tesh.systems.susq.com> stewart(a)sig.com (Rob Stewart) wrote (abridged): > > v << foo() << bar(); > > I don't like that. It suggests formatted insertion rather than > initialization. It's not intended to be initialisation. It does a push_back(), so you can do it at any time and not just on empty vectors. I guess I'd pick a different name for the library, but as written that includes += so it too is not just for initialisation. As I said, I don't think formatting is an essential characteristic of operator<<(). It happens to be necessary for streams because they are text oriented. The serialisation library uses operator<<() without formatting. > As you point out, conversion is possible, but one can't overload > operator<< to customize the initialization. Why not? vector<Foo> &operator<<( vector<Foo> &v, const Bar &bar ) { return v << bar.toFoo(); // Or whatever conversion you want. } Or whatever the right types are. > Thus, it doesn't fit neatly with IOStreams. It's not polymorphic with them, but I think it fits about as neatly as the serialisation library. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK

2 1

RE: [boost] Re: VC7.1 Building...
by Brian Carlson 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

>You might want to limit posts to plain text, whatever email format your >using defeats the auto-original-indent capabilities for Outlook Express. >Also directly reply to messages that you are reading. Many use the >gmane.org >newsreader interface which maintains message thread integrity. This is set to plain text, I'm using Outlook. Hopefully this works better. > I don't have a vc7.1-tools.jam file. And I have vc7.0 and vc7.1 > I've never heard of this file, and don't think there is one. When you run bjam -sTOOLS=XXX It takes the XXX and appends -tools.jam to find the .jam file for building for the specific compiler. > Your building for vc7.0, I'm not sure what the -a is. -a is rebuild all, even if current. >If you want to build for vc7.1 you should use vc7.1. I did (bjam -sTOOLS=vc7.1 stage) and I get the following error: Vc7.1-tools.jam No such file or directory. >I would start over if I were you. Open a Command Propmpt window. Change >directory to you boost_1_31_0 directory. Type the following _exactly_ as >shown: > > bjam -sTOOLS=vc7.1 stage I did, but I'm using 1.29, not 1.31 That might be the problem....hmm Thanks, Brian

3 2

FYI: Trolltech's new generic containers
by Neal D. Becker 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

This may be of some interest: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/containers.html

1 0

RE: RE: [boost] Does anyone have an is_virtual_base_and_derived ?
by SRobb＠reflectionsinteractive.com 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

> > I wrote that very thing a year or so ago for the purpose of > testing if a > > base pointer type can be statically downcast to a derived type. > > My problem exactly ! I should warn you that this isn't quite enough information to test for static downcastability in all cases. Take the following example: struct b1 {}; struct b2 : b1 {}; struct b3 : virtual b2 {}; Here, b1 is not a virtual base of b3, but a downcast from b1* to b3* is still impossible. I don't believe there is any way to test for this case without compiler assistance. Testing for a virtual base happened to be good enough for us though, so we went with it; it may well be enough for your needs too.

1 0

Proposal: Minimalist ScopeGuard
by Jonathan Turkanis 08 Jul '04

08 Jul '04

Hi All, I've uploaded a very simple version of Andrei and Petru's ScopeGuard to the files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/scope_guard.zip. It's only smart enough to handle cleanup functions or function objects with the signature 'void f()'; more complex cleanup is easy with Bind or Lambda. There are two object generators: - make_guard returns a scope guard which propagates exceptions - safe_guard returns a scope guard which catches and ignores exceptions Similarly, there are two macros - BOOST_SCOPE_GUARD declares an anonymous scope guard which propagates exceptions - BOOST_SAFE_GUARD declares an anonymous scope guard which catches and ignores exceptions Best Regards, Jonathan //------------------Example--------------------// #include <iostream> #include <boost/bind.hpp> #include <boost/lambda/lambda.hpp> #include <boost/lambda/bind.hpp> #include <boost/scope_guard.hpp> void goodbye() { std::cout << "goodbye\n"; } void crash() { throw 0; } struct T { void goodbye() { std::cout << "goodbye\n"; } }; // // Expected output: // hello // goodbye // goodbye // goodbye // goodbye // goodbye // int main() { using namespace boost; T t; // Scope guard which invokes t.goodbye(). scope_guard g1 = make_guard(boost::bind(&T::goodbye, t)); // Scope guard which invokes goodbye(). scope_guard g2 = make_guard(goodbye); // Scope guard which executes std::cout << "goodbye\n". scope_guard g3 = make_guard( std::cout << boost::lambda::constant("goodbye\n") ); // Scope guard which invokes crash() in a try-catch block. scope_guard g4 = safe_guard(crash); // Scope guard which invokes crash(). scope_guard g5 = make_guard(crash); g5.dismiss(); // Scope guard which invokes goodbye(). BOOST_SCOPE_GUARD(goodbye); // Same. (Shows that generated variable names are working.) BOOST_SCOPE_GUARD(goodbye); // Scope guard which invokes crash() in a try-catch block. BOOST_SAFE_GUARD(crash); std::cout << "hello\n"; }

1 0