- Boost - lists.boost.org

RE: [boost] Re: Re: BOOST_READONLY_PROPERTY macro
by Rozental, Gennadiy 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

> Can you just please tell me what BOOST_READONLY_PROPERTY ( > bool, (epv) ) > will become once it is preprocessed ? Something like this: class readonly_property123 : public boost::unit_test::readonly_property<bool> { typedef boost::unit_test::readonly_property<bool> base; friend class epv; // <-- here BOOST_PP is used typedef base::write_param_t write_param_t; public: readonly_property123() {} explicit readonly_property123( write_param_t init_v ) : base( init_v ) {} } > > P.S. Paul should know the answer > I don't think Paul knows about _all_ libraries that _use_ the > PP library. This has something to do with specific compiler bug in regards of PP.

1 0

Test failure for basic_cstring_test
by Martin Wille 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

Hello, basic_cstring_test fails on gcc-3.2.3 in a way that causes the test post processing to fail, too. The basic_cstring_test related lines from the log file are appended to this message. The full log for gcc-3.2.3-linux can be found at http://tinyurl.com/34ltq Regression log post processing fails with this message: **** exception(205): std::exception: boost::filesystem::path: invalid name "basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0x757):.." in path: "bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0x757):../libs/test/test" ******** errors detected; see standard output for details ******** Regards, m gcc-C++-action ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp: In function `bool boost::test_tools::detail::equal_and_continue_impl(const Left&, const Right&, boost::wrap_stringstream&, boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<const char>, unsigned int, boost::unit_test::log_level, unsigned int) [with Left = size_t, Right = int]': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:82: instantiated from `void constructors_test(CharT*) [with CharT = wchar_t]' ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:124: instantiated from `static void meta_constructors_test::execute(T*) [with T = wchar_t]' /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_case_template.hpp:60: instantiated from `void boost::unit_test::detail::test_case_template_instance<TestCaseTemplate, TestType>::do_run() [with TestCaseTemplate = meta_constructors_test, TestType = wchar_t]' /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/utility/value_init.hpp:49: instantiated from here /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp:430: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions gcc-Link-action ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0x657): In function `void find_test<char const>(char const*)': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:470: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0x757):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:368: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::length(unsigned char const*)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0x8ac):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:432: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0xa1a):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:433: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIhEvPT_+0xb93):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:480: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z16data_access_testIhEvPT_+0xb8): In function `void data_access_test<unsigned char>(unsigned char*)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/detail/basic_cstring/basic_cstring.hpp:539: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z16data_access_testIhEvPT_+0x1e7): In function `void data_access_test<unsigned char>(unsigned char*)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp:446: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z14asignment_testIhEvPT_+0xea):/usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/include/c++/3.2.3/bits/basic_string.tcc:155: more undefined references to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' follow ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIKhEvPT_+0x757): In function `void find_test<char const>(char const*)': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:368: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::length(unsigned char const*)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIKhEvPT_+0x8ac):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:432: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIKhEvPT_+0xa1a):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:433: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z17constructors_testIKhEvPT_+0xb93):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:480: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z23constructors_const_testIKhEvPT_+0x114): In function `void constructors_const_test<unsigned char const>(unsigned char const*)': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:195: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z20asignment_const_testIKhEvPT_+0x11f): In function `void asignment_const_test<unsigned char const>(unsigned char const*)': /usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/include/c++/3.2.3/bits/basic_string.tcc:160: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._Z20asignment_const_testIKhEvPT_+0x258):../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:353: more undefined references to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' follow ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIhEC1EPh+0x37): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>::basic_cstring[in-charge](unsigned char*)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/detail/shared_count.hpp:150: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::length(unsigned char const*)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_testltIhEEbRKNS0_13basic_cstringIT_EES6_+0x7c): In function `bool boost::unit_test::operator< <unsigned char>(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char> const&, boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char> const&)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/detail/basic_cstring/compare.hpp:51: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIhE4findES2_+0xab): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>::find(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>) const': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:329: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIhE10trim_rightES2_+0x8d): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>::trim_right(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>)': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:260: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::find(unsigned char const*, unsigned, unsigned char const&)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIhE9trim_leftES2_+0x8b): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>::trim_left(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/detail/shared_count.hpp:345: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::find(unsigned char const*, unsigned, unsigned char const&)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIhE5rfindES2_+0xab): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>::rfind(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char>) const': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:329: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIKhEC1EPS2_+0x37): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>::basic_cstring[in-charge](unsigned char const*)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/detail/shared_count.hpp:150: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::length(unsigned char const*)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSbIhSt11char_traitsIhESaIhEEC1EPKhRKS1_+0x13): In function `std::basic_string<unsigned char, std::char_traits<unsigned char>, std::allocator<unsigned char> >::basic_string[in-charge](unsigned char const*, std::allocator<unsigned char> const&)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/detail/basic_cstring/basic_cstring.hpp:531: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::length(unsigned char const*)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_testltIKhEEbRKNS0_13basic_cstringIT_EES7_+0x7c): In function `bool boost::unit_test::operator< <unsigned char const>(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const> const&, boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const> const&)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/detail/basic_cstring/compare.hpp:51: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIKhE4findES3_+0xab): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>::find(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>) const': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:329: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIKhE10trim_rightES3_+0x8d): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>::trim_right(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>)': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:260: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::find(unsigned char const*, unsigned, unsigned char const&)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIKhE9trim_leftES3_+0x8b): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>::trim_left(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/detail/shared_count.hpp:345: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::find(unsigned char const*, unsigned, unsigned char const&)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK5boost9unit_test13basic_cstringIKhE5rfindES3_+0xab): In function `boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>::rfind(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const>) const': ../libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.cpp:329: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_testeqIhhEEbRKNS0_13basic_cstringIT_EERKNS2_IT0_EE+0x5c): In function `bool boost::unit_test::operator==<unsigned char, unsigned char>(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char> const&, boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char> const&)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp:434: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNKSbIhSt11char_traitsIhESaIhEE5c_strEv+0x2e): In function `std::basic_string<unsigned char, std::char_traits<unsigned char>, std::allocator<unsigned char> >::c_str() const': /usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/include/c++/3.2.3/bits/stl_algobase.h:240: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::assign(unsigned char&, unsigned char const&)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN5boost9unit_testeqIKhS2_EEbRKNS0_13basic_cstringIT_EERKNS3_IT0_EE+0x5c): In function `bool boost::unit_test::operator==<unsigned char const, unsigned char const>(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const> const&, boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<unsigned char const> const&)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/test/test_tools.hpp:434: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::compare(unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSbIhSt11char_traitsIhESaIhEE13_S_copy_charsEPhPKhS5_+0x20): In function `std::basic_string<unsigned char, std::char_traits<unsigned char>, std::allocator<unsigned char> >::_S_copy_chars(unsigned char*, unsigned char const*, unsigned char const*)': /boost/head-regression/boost/boost/detail/shared_count.hpp:100: undefined reference to `std::char_traits<unsigned char>::copy(unsigned char*, unsigned char const*, unsigned)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status set -e LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH export LD_LIBRARY_PATH "/usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/bin/g++wrap" --limit-memory=600 --limit-cpu=1800 -g -o "../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test" -L"../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug" -L"/usr/local/gcc-3.2.3/lib" "../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test.o" "../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/libboost_unit_test_framework.a" "../bin/boost/libs/test/build/libboost_unit_test_framework.a/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/libboost_unit_test_framework.a" -Wl,-rpath-link,. ...failed gcc-Link-action ../bin/boost/libs/test/test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug/basic_cstring_test... ...skipped <@boost!libs!test!test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug>basic_cstring_test.run for lack of <@boost!libs!test!test/basic_cstring_test.test/gcc-3.2.3-linux/debug>basic_cstring_test...

4 6

port of library to vacpp (item 2)
by Toon Knapen 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

I stumble on another problem when trying to compile the test library with IBM/VisualAge (vacpp). Apparantly vacpp has a problem on lines 97,98 and 99 of boost/test/detail/basic_cstring/basic_cstring.hpp. Basically the problem is this: this file declares a class template < class CharT > class basic_string { public: typedef basic_string<CharT> self_type ; self_type& trim_left(self_type exclusions = self_type() ) ; // line 97 } ; If I now remove the default initializer, vacpp does not choke anymore (same situation on lines 98 and 99). I tried to isolate this problem in small test but in a small test vacpp seems to deal with the situation just fine. Thus AFAICT this is a compiler-bug but would anyone mind if I remove the default initializers or just remove them in the vacpp compilation to get one step closer to running the regression tests on vacpp again.

5 8

Proposed Boost Library for Data Series Analysis
by Tom Brinkman 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

I placed a small tutorial and motivating example for the proposed boost::data_series library. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/data_series/ Working examples for you to criticize will be added within the week. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

RE: [boost] Re: BOOST_READONLY_PROPERTY macro
by Rozental, Gennadiy 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

> > BOOST_CLASS_PROPERTY is used like this: > > > > BOOST_CLASS_PROPERTY( int, (class1)(class2)...(classN) ) property; > > How is that relevant? Sorry supposed to be BOOST_READONLY_PROPERTY in both places. Gennadiy.

3 3

RE: [boost] Re: iostreams library review
by Brian Braatz 02 Jun '04

02 Jun '04

"""""""" > what is the fate of this library? Thanks for your interest! The previous version available at http://www.xmission.com/~turkanis/iostreams/. """""""""" I downloaded the library from the yahoo link you mentioned in the review request. When trying to use 'filtered_stream' I ran into some compilation issues (RedHat 9, g++ 3.3) and before looking into it I wanted to know the review status. Knowing that the library is in the review pipeline I will give it another try. Some time ago I developed simple iostream adapter 'library' that allows to wrap IO device (sockets, pipes, etc) in std::[i,o,io]stream that is very similar to your sink/source technique. One difference is that the adapter is a template class parameterized by the source/sink types. Since your library offers this functionality (plus much more) I am very pleased it will become part of boost soon. """""""""" A quick look your page is very interesting. (looks very cool) I was thinking (also) along the same lines for some work I am currently doing, but you beat me to it. Question, have you tried to combine the streaming with boost serialization?

2 1

Re: [boost] Re: static sized strings
by Reece Dunn 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Rob Stewart wrote: >Subject: Re: [boost] Re: static sized strings >Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:13:38 -0400 (EDT) > >From: "Reece Dunn" <msclrhd(a)hotmail.com> > > John Nagle wrote: > > > I've done some cleanup on my version of fixed_string at > > > http://www.animats.com/source > > >[snip] > > > We're approaching convergence on this. > > > > We are both working on variations of the same idea. As such, I have >fixed > > several errors in my code making it operate better as a basic_string > > interface and have seperated the safe_string.hpp file into the >appropriate > > headers (fsstring.hpp for string.h, fsstdio.hpp for stdio.h and >fswchar.hpp > > for wchar.h). I have also posted BoostBook format documentation to the >libs > > section. > > > > However, we are still no closer to deciding which implementation to >choose. > > We can either: > > [1] Choose one implementation and drop the other (possibly collaborate); > > [2] Continue both and put them against each other to see which is >better; > > [3] Drop both and develop one together from scratch. > > > > Option [3] is not viable, since a lot of the hard work has already been >done > > (size issues, etc.). I would like the implementation we use to be mine >and > > I'm sure John feels the same way about his. I am also getting to the >stage > > where I am considering putting mine up for review (once I get the tests > > written). > >John hasn't fleshed out his design quite as completely as you >have yours, but he's close. John just raised a new point: >accessing the N + 1'st element. That may not have been apparent >had he not been working on his own version -- or have you already >dealt with that? -- so both implementations remain useful. My s[ i ] throws if i > capacity() which shouldn't cause a problem. s.at( i ) throws if i > length(). >I laid out a plan previously for how to judge between the >implementations. I suggest waiting to have either reviewed until >you can both run your code through the same tests -- with and >without errors -- to see if there is a clear winner. Sure. I have been writing tests for my library (boost-sandbox/fixed_string/test/*.cpp) with a BBv2 file to do the testing. I have the C-style functions test cases posted and have made a start with the basic_string cases [21.3.1-4]. There still need to be tests for when the operations will cause buffer overflow on unprotected code, and generate exceptions for functions like s.at( i ), but I am waiting until I have written the basic test cases. The tests currently use my naming conventions, but I am sure they can be adapted for John's versions as well for comparisons. I could also implement bench marcking tests for performance analysis. >Another possible means to judge between the two is to find >real-world C code using strings, that compiles with a C++ >compiler. Then, each library author can translate the code >according to the needs of the libraries. Diffs will reveal the >extent of the changes needed, and copious notes could illustrate >common mistakes made and error messages encountered during the >translation. That information can clarify which design makes the >translation of C string code into fixed_string code easiest >(performance will have already been ascertained, so needn't be >reassessed). That would be a good idea. >If that doesn't reveal a clear winner, I've a suggestion for >breaking the tie: I can pass the options through a coworker of >mine. He was a C programmer for a very long time and has been >writing C++ code for less time. He still thinks like a C >programmer in a lot of ways, so he might have insights we're >missing. Also a good idea. Regards, Reece _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

RE: [boost] Re: static sized strings
by Reece Dunn 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

John Nagle wrote: > I've done some cleanup on my version of fixed_string at > http://www.animats.com/source >[snip] > We're approaching convergence on this. We are both working on variations of the same idea. As such, I have fixed several errors in my code making it operate better as a basic_string interface and have seperated the safe_string.hpp file into the appropriate headers (fsstring.hpp for string.h, fsstdio.hpp for stdio.h and fswchar.hpp for wchar.h). I have also posted BoostBook format documentation to the libs section. However, we are still no closer to deciding which implementation to choose. We can either: [1] Choose one implementation and drop the other (possibly collaborate); [2] Continue both and put them against each other to see which is better; [3] Drop both and develop one together from scratch. Option [3] is not viable, since a lot of the hard work has already been done (size issues, etc.). I would like the implementation we use to be mine and I'm sure John feels the same way about his. I am also getting to the stage where I am considering putting mine up for review (once I get the tests written). What do other people think? Regards, Reece _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

2 1

Re: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]
by eegg＠comcast.net 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

--- Rob Stewart <stewart(a)sig.com> wrote: > From: "E. Gladyshev" <eegg(a)comcast.net> > > From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart(a)sig.com> > > > From: "E. Gladyshev" <eegg(a)comcast.net> > > > > From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart(a)sig.com> > > [...] > > 1. Some platforms pose non-C++ exceptions as normal C++ exception. > > You don't always want those platfrom specific exceptions trigger > > a whole bunch of stuff in your program. > > The only platform I know of that does that is Windows/MSVC It makes it pretty common, doesn't it. :) > you can handle structured exceptions specially. Perhaps it > means that boost::fsm needs to provide a means to install an > exception handler for those exceptions not already recognized by > the library: > > try { throw; } > catch (...) { boost::fsm::detail::handle_exception(); } > > void boost::fsm::detail::handle_exception() > { > try { throw; } > catch (type1 const &) { ... }; > catch (type2 const &) { ... }; > catch (type3 const &) { ... }; > catch (...) { user_handler(); } > } > where user_handler is a pointer to function that's initialized to > std::unexpected() and can be overridden by the library user. Adding user_handler() doesn't stop stack unwinding. I think you are missing the point. The issue is not in how to process SEH exceptions (or any other unhandled exception) the issue is in how not to trigger stack unwinding (for all exceptions) and still be able discriminate user exception types generically in FSM. Your solution doesn't solve this problem. > > It may also be that SEH can be configured to intervene before a > C++ exception is generated by the RTL so those never become C++ > exceptions that can muck up the works. It is not trivial... but it is out of the FSM topic. > > 2. Your design assumes that all possible exceptions are known > > and you handle them. So any unhandled exception is a bug. > > Not quite. What I was showing would rethrow any unknown > exception, leaving to clients to determine how to handle it. > > > It is not safe to trigger stack unwinding in a buggy environment. > > If you say so. Every application and platform with which I work > is buggy and yet I manage to use exceptions and stack unwinding > works. What do you mean by "stack unwinding works". Do you mean that even if the exception is caused by a bug, stack unwinding didn't make things worse or less safer? Well, it's a long shot... [...] > This is just another case of things not being as pretty > as one might like but that doesn't mean stack unwinding is > faulty. Sorry, who said that stack unwinding is faulty? Eugene

5 8

Re: [boost] [Serialization] Errors when compiling using GCC 3.4
by Robert Ramey 01 Jun '04

01 Jun '04

Allen Yao wrote: > I just updated my gcc from 3.3.3 to 3.4, and found that the > serialization17 and serialization18 cannot compile. There are many error > messages, some of them seem to caused by lack of "typename", others are > very strange, for example, about using boost::noncopyable. > Does someone try serialization library on GCC 3.4? Can it be compiled? > I suspect I am missing something. Otherwise, I would like to try to "fix" > the "bugs" myself. Hmmm, I just checked. I'm currently using gcc 3.3.1 ? Should I upgrade to gcc 3.4.? I seem to recall information on the list that suggested it would be better to wait a little bit. If upgrading is a good thing - now is a good time for me to do it as I'm just finalizing all the changes for next version and just starting the "torture test torture" procedure of reconciliation of compiler quirks. Robert Ramey

4 5