- Boost - lists.boost.org

Author assistance for WG21 display content
by Robert Beeston 30 Jan '25

30 Jan '25

Hello everyone, My name is Rob Beeston, and I’m the Product and Creative Director for C++ Alliance. I’m currently making arrangements for the upcoming WG21 event, and could use some help from some of the authors. We will be making posters, similar to this mockup ( https://downloads.cppalliance.org/images/boost-poster.png) to highlight the following libraries at the event: Hash2 Math Parser Scope Unordered Each poster would need a brief description, a longer explanation (perhaps 1-2 short paragraphs of what it does and/or how it works) and a code snippet that would best represent how to use it. Thanks and I’m looking forward to working with you. Rob

4 6

Interest for C++20 modules support of boost officially
by Chuanqi Xu 29 Jan '25

29 Jan '25

Hi Boost Developers, I am Chuanqi Xu, the maintainer for modules & serialization in clang and also a fan of C++20 modules. The post itself was motivated by a discussion (https://cpplang.slack.com/archives/C27KZLB0X/p1734335425348809 <https://cpplang.slack.com/archives/C27KZLB0X/p1734335425348809 >). You don’t need to read it if you’re not interested. I’ll try to make the post itself self contained. The original story comes from a high quality experiment for C++20 modules in boost (https://anarthal.github.io/cppblog/modules2 <https://anarthal.github.io/cppblog/modules2 >). The blog reads pretty good to me. However, anarthal (the author) told me later that the process of supporting modules in boost got suspended since the authors (or the maintainers) don’t want it since no one is going to use them. And if I want it, I need to send a mail here. Then this is the beginning of the story. First of first, I want to emphasize that “no one is going to use them” is not true. We’ve already used C++20 modules at larger scale internally for roughly a year. For boost (and other third party libraries), we choose to wrap a module ourselves as a workaround (with some compiler extensions to ease the refacotoring, but we don’t like it. We still want standard behavior). We didn’t reach out since we feel boost will support C++20 modules later or sooner so we don’t need to do anything specially. (Maybe we were wrong. We didn’t understand the ecosystem enough). Until yesterday, I just knew that boost didn’t know such needs. Before I wrote this email, I wondered a lot of words to emphasize that our need are a good example and the users of closed source are important users too. But just now, I searched the use of boost in modules in GitHub. I just realized I can show it (the importance of C++20 modules support for boost) much easily with the open source world. I searched `boost path:*.cppm` in GitHub and got the following list: https://github.com/infiniflow/infinity/blob/fa922afd58c973a9a317d2c09ad8cea… <https://github.com/infiniflow/infinity/blob/fa922afd58c973a9a317d2c09ad8cea… > https://github.com/ossia/score/blob/0ce6f62a97651a1248a92b3e13ce6ede10341d1… <https://github.com/ossia/score/blob/0ce6f62a97651a1248a92b3e13ce6ede10341d1… > https://github.com/RichardLuo0/make-dot-cpp/blob/e2ef10fd43060a2b56fc8f87f1… <https://github.com/RichardLuo0/make-dot-cpp/blob/e2ef10fd43060a2b56fc8f87f1… > https://github.com/slaakko/cmajor-mod/blob/32e6eb8dc099b395fa751340de96f478… <https://github.com/slaakko/cmajor-mod/blob/32e6eb8dc099b395fa751340de96f478… > https://github.com/df-com/dragonfly/blob/9dfcbc1153f292eb8581f1df7459600cc3… <https://github.com/df-com/dragonfly/blob/9dfcbc1153f292eb8581f1df7459600cc3… > https://github.com/nofe1248/Helium/blob/92ec4452b8c05e6d86c972f843196a4392a… <https://github.com/nofe1248/Helium/blob/92ec4452b8c05e6d86c972f843196a4392a… > https://github.com/LagrangeDev/liblagrange/blob/10e3b48f8d47fd65de00b14cfed… <https://github.com/LagrangeDev/liblagrange/blob/10e3b48f8d47fd65de00b14cfed… > https://github.com/yudaichen/feature-db/blob/e94ade969af682ed5dd25d70bf282b… <https://github.com/yudaichen/feature-db/blob/e94ade969af682ed5dd25d70bf282b… > This is not a complete list even for my search only and I believe there are other patterns to use boost with modules now (e.g., at least `*.cppm` is not the defacto suffix). And I also believe, from my experience as a C++ user, if boost provide modules, I may try to use it. But if boost didn’t provide it, maybe I won’t ask for it if I don’t want modules super bad. Since modules doesn’t add any new functionality actually. So most users may not ask for it explicitly. But if boost provides it, people may give it a try. The above text are the body of the post. I hope it can show it is needed. — Following of are some technical discussion for the extra maintainance burden by introducing modules. The conclusion is, I think, the burden is pretty low. Since modules are not complex to users. Different from other big features in C++, modules are pretty easy to understand. The complexity of modules are majorly on tools and the ecosystem. For programmers who don’t get involved to much to the ecosystem (or infrastructure), modules should be pretty easy to understand. For authors of libraries, after boost introduce modules, you only need to do 2 extra things: - In headers, add a macro (assume its name as BOOST_MODULE_EXPORT, which will be ‘export’ conditionally) to the entities that need to be exported. - In headers, include standard headers and other dependent headers conditionally so that we don’t include anything if the headers are in a module unit. e.g., https://github.com/boostorg/pfr/blob/f09e6aeae9d050897fff72b93d5f5e866cc5e1… <https://github.com/boostorg/pfr/blob/f09e6aeae9d050897fff72b93d5f5e866cc5e1… > then that’s roughly all you need for maintaining it at source level. For building and distributing related things, anarthal told me that the boost will handle it globally so the individual arthors don’t need to care about it. — In slack, there are some other discussion about module names and linking problems (https://cpplang.slack.com/archives/C27KZLB0X/p1734345716728609 <https://cpplang.slack.com/archives/C27KZLB0X/p1734345716728609 >). But I feel they are implementation details. I may not talk too much for that as a user at least now. And also there are opinions for configuration flags. These are the jobs of build systems (cmake is working on it). I think boost don’t need to worry for that. Similarly, at least libc++ has similar problems but libc++ still released std module. — Boost has a special position in the C++’s ecosystem. The most simple and impressive answer I’ve heard for the question “when can we start to use modules” is, “when boost makes it”. Thanks, Chuanqi

15 85

observing process blocked on find_or_construct
by Murali Kishore 28 Jan '25

28 Jan '25

Hi , We are trying interprocess scenario, one process created shared memory objects and killed and second process open the object using find_or_construct seeing this process blocked at getting lock. bt as shown below, #0 __lll_lock_wait () at ../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/lowlevellock.S:135 #1 0x00007fa6b6733eb6 in _L_lock_941 () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0 #2 0x00007fa6b6733daf in __GI___pthread_mutex_lock (mutex=mutex@entry=0x7fa6b198b070) at ../nptl/pthread_mutex_lock.c:113 #3 0x0000000001bc3822 in lock (this=0x7fa6b198b070) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/sync/posix/recursive_mutex.hpp:90 #4 lock (this=0x7fa6b198b070) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/sync/interprocess_recursive_mutex.hpp:163 #5 scoped_lock (m=..., this=<synthetic pointer>) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/sync/scoped_lock.hpp:81 #6 boost::interprocess::segment_manager<char, boost::interprocess::rbtree_best_fit<boost::interprocess::mutex_family, boost::interprocess::offset_ptr<void, long, unsigned long, 0ul>, 0ul>, boost::interprocess::iset_index>::priv_generic_named_construct<char> (this=0x7fa6b198b010, type=<optimized out>, name=0x7ffde183ca20 "reported_slice_config_list", num=1, try2find=<optimized out>, dothrow=<optimized out>, table=..., index=..., is_intrusive=...) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/segment_manager.hpp:1076 #7 0x0000000001bee007 in boost::interprocess::segment_manager<char, boost::interprocess::rbtree_best_fit<boost::interprocess::mutex_family, boost::interprocess::offset_ptr<void, long, unsigned long, 0ul>, 0ul>, boost::interprocess::iset_index>::priv_generic_construct (this=<optimized out>, name=name@entry=0x7ffde183ca20 "reported_slice_config_list", num=num@entry=1, try2find=try2find@entry=true, dothrow=dothrow@entry=true, table=...) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/segment_manager.hpp:760 #8 0x0000000001bf112d in generic_construct<boost::container::map<unsigned int, gnb::broadcast_plmn_list, std::less<unsigned int>, boost::interprocess::allocator<std::pair<unsigned int const, gnb::broadcast_plmn_list>, boost::interprocess::segment_manager<char, boost::interprocess::rbtree_best_fit<boost::interprocess::mutex_family>, boost::interprocess::iset_index> > > > (table=..., dothrow=true, try2find=true, num=1, name=0x7ffde183ca20 "reported_slice_config_list", this=<optimized out>) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/segment_manager.hpp:704 #9 operator()<std::less<unsigned int>, boost::interprocess::allocator<std::pair<unsigned int const, gnb::broadcast_plmn_list>, boost::interprocess::segment_manager<char, boost::interprocess::rbtree_best_fit<boost::interprocess::mutex_family, boost::interprocess::offset_ptr<void, long int, long unsigned int, 0ul>, 0ul>, boost::interprocess::iset_index> >&> (this=<optimized out>) at /x86/include/boost/interprocess/detail/named_proxy.hpp:132 please let me know in which cases this can be occured, we see first process also hangs in termination. -- Regards, Murali Kishore

3 3

End of Boost.Decimal Review
by John Maddock 25 Jan '25

25 Jan '25

The review of the proposed Decimal library has now ended - although given that there was a lot of lively discussion for me to sort through, there is still time to submit a late review if you wish. If I've counted correctly there were 5 reviews (4 on the list, one private): one firm reject and 4 conditional accept, plus many more people involved in the discussion than gave reviews. I have to be honest, I would have liked to have seen a couple more reviews in order to have reached a clearer consensus, so please bare with me while I sift through all the comments and try and reach a conclusion. My thanks to everyone who took part, and of course to Matt and Chris for submitting the library. Best, John.

1 0

GSoC 2025 Projects
by Matt Borland 24 Jan '25

24 Jan '25

All, In the modules thread and on Slack, I asked if Boost had a current plan for participation in GSoC 2025. I haven't received any responses yet, so I'll assume there isn't a plan. I'm wondering if anyone has: a) Projects they would like to propose for GSoC, and b) An interest in mentoring. Here are some ideas that I think could be beneficial and approachable: 1) A proof of concept for a Boost module, including distribution and installation processes, and potentially adding support to select libraries. This project could have easy access to the Clang and MSVC teams via their mentor it seems. 2) Bi-variate interpolation has been requested before in Math. ACM TOMS algorithms 751 and 761 could fit the bill, but their references are written in F77. A faithful translation and implementation of those papers would be a good start. 3) Chris Kormanyos and I are working on a cryptographic module that we intend to have certified under FIPS 140-3 and then propose to Boost. An extension of this could be a TLS project where a student provides a proof of concept with a generic file transfer server or similar that works securely with OpenSSL, and then also with our new module. I can mentor at least one of these projects. If anyone has past applications for the organization, please send a link or copies. We have until mid-Feb to apply as an organization, which I can do if no one else volunteers. Best, Matt

5 8

Another Boost.Decimal Review
by Jeff Garland 23 Jan '25

23 Jan '25

Thanks to Matt Borland and Chris Kormanyos for this good work. I vote to ACCEPT the library. I trust the authors to improve documentation, api, and performance as a matter of continued development. Let me say a few things about some discussions in the review threads up-front. *Standardization:* I'm an advocate for it and would be willing to help the authors with the process. Rationale: 1) this standardizes existing practice (aka IEEE 754), something like it is supported in many languages (specifically C23), and there's significant use cases for this in many domains even if it's slightly slower. 2) While a standalone library can go far, often a compiler/library can more easily optimize fundamental things like numeric types. 3) I spoke with Dietmar about the review and standardization -- he's still an advocate for having this capability, but has higher priorities at the moment. *N2849*: It's a decent design for 2009 -- less so in 2025. Specifically, w.r.t. conversion we should only perform automatic conversions from types (see below). The library already takes care of from_chars, format and some other more modern things N2849 wouldn't address. *C23 and _Decimal** Should this library consider being a layer over C23 types where that's possible? GCC supports them at least in a limited fashion. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Decimal-Float.html > Does this library bring real benefit to C++ developers for real world use-case? > Do you have an application for this library? Yes and yes. > Does the API match with current best practices? I have some quibbles here. *Construction*: template <typename T, typename T2>constexpr decimal32(T coeff, T2 exp, bool sign = false) noexcept; Is the sign flag helpful here? It seems simpler to just handle a negative coefficient -- like it already does. When I look at it there's already cognitive dissidence in my brain about if the sign flag *overrides* or *inverts* the coefficient sign. The N2849 api doesn't have this flag. *Fast Types:* I read through the list conversation about the _fast types. My suggestion is to drop them. Simplifies everything for users and implementers. The movement in c++ over the last decade(s) has been to precisely say the size of the type to ensure correctness and not 'let the platform decide' (aka uint32_t, int64_t, etc). In my comment on documentation you'll notice the c++20 extended floating point types *only provide* fixed sizes. Also N2849 and C23 don't support _fast types for decimal. *Conversions:* I'd like to see the library *pull back* on convertibility. long double ld{1.23456789234567}; decimal32 d(ld); // what happens -- round, truncate, doesn't compile? The best answer is doesn't compile. There's been significant work in the standard now to define floating point rank and limit conversions with the extended floating point types. Specifically: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p1467r9.html#rank There's also other work on type traits and value preserving conversions in the SIMD capabilities. Also, std::chrono basically already does this -- any value destroying conversion has to be explicit. At a minimum the answer needs to be better documented - aka does what 754-2008 says? For other examples of things I'd remove and make a free function cast/round -- aka explicit user decision: class decimal64 { ... explicit constexpr operator std::int8_t() const noexcept; This is highly likely to not be value preserving so shouldn't be possible without a decision on how to handle overflow. class decimal64 { ... explicit constexpr operator decimal32() const noexcept; *Literals* constexpr auto operator "" _DF(const char* str) -> decimal32constexpr auto operator "" _df(const char* str) -> decimal32 Why not _d32, _d64, _d128? _df makes me think fast, not 32. > Is the documentation helpful and clear? Not bad, but as usual improvements can be made. As a user I'm going to need to select one of these types -- I'd love to see a table like this one at cppreference for named floating point types: *Type name* Defined in header <stdfloat> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/stdfloat> Literal suffix Predefined macro C language type Type properties bits of storage bits of precision bits of exponent max exponent std::float16_t f16 or F16 __STDCPP_FLOAT16_T__ _Float16 16 11 5 15 std::float32_t f32 or F32 __STDCPP_FLOAT32_T__ _Float32 32 24 8 127 std::float64_t f64 or F64 __STDCPP_FLOAT64_T__ _Float64 64 53 11 1023 std::float128_t f128 or F128 __STDCPP_FLOAT128_T__ _Float128 128 113 15 16383 std::bfloat16_t bf16 or BF16 __STDCPP_BFLOAT16_T__ (N/A) 16 8 8 127 Not sure how it renders in email so source: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/floating-point Not looking for exact replication, but something like this. In the *using the library* section I'd like to see some: - examples of using it it math - examples of the behavior of NAN/inf values - conversions from other types like float expanded Where is the design decisions section? Some of the things I'm asking about should be covered in the docs. > Did you try to use it? What problems or surprises did you encounter? I didn't have time to play with it unfortunately -- godbolt would be helpful. That's all for now. Jeff

4 5

Re: [boost] Decimal: Formal review begins
by Glen Fernandes 23 Jan '25

23 Jan '25

I mentioned this to Matt, but I would like to see benchmarks comparing boost::decimal64_fast to a Decimal64 backed by Intel's DFP library, which is what I know to be in actual use today: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/tool/intel-decim… Not that the benchmarks comparing to GCC's Decimal64 (which is based on the libbid which ships with libgcc) aren't useful, I personally don't know anyone using that today. Benchmarks should ideally also include Intel's compiler, because at least one of the relevant parties who motivated me to suggest the Decimal64 library (to Vinnie as a potential project) do use the Intel C++ compiler (and their Fortran compiler) for areas where they perform better. (The non-fast versions don't matter to me. I don't know anyone who would want to use them). Glen

12 36

Decimal Library: Last call for reviews?
by John Maddock 22 Jan '25

22 Jan '25

Formally, today is the last day of the Decimal Library review, so far there has been a lot of discussion, but only three full reviews with outcomes. Are there any more reviews incoming? Thanks, John.

1 0

My review of Decimal
by Ivan Matek 21 Jan '25

21 Jan '25

Hi everybody, PDF size exceeds ML limit so here is google drive link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kH9WkeTDxN7FFqM_g7hV_-e3kJPlTGBr/view

6 16

Reminder to submit Boost.Decimal reviews
by John Maddock 20 Jan '25

20 Jan '25

Just a gentle reminder that the Decimal library review is currently ongoing, there's been plenty of discussion, but only one full review so far.... so if you're thinking of submitting a review, now would be the time ;) Thanks all, John.

1 0