- Boost - lists.boost.org

[gsoc15] Removing my proposal due to plagiarism concerns
by Sandilya Jandhyala 22 Mar '15

22 Mar '15

About 12 days ago I'd posted my proposal here asking for feedback; however, it seems that some people have forked it (it's a GitHub repository) and then deleted their forked repositories. I am taking down the repository due to concerns of plagiarism. I've submitted it to Melange, and community members who want to view it/offer feedback can see it there. I hope the admins are mindful of this when evaluating proposals. It seems that there's already been a case of plagiarism here.

4 5

Test failures on sanitize memory - are they caused by lightweight_test?
by Fletcher, John P 22 Mar '15

22 Mar '15

There is a test set on develop called BenPope x86_64 Ubuntu - phoenix - adapt_function / clang-linux-3.6~msan~c14_libc++ This runs this command line for example on the Phoenix test "adapt_function": "clang++-3.6" -c -x c++ -std=c++1y -stdlib=libc++ -fsanitize=memory -O0 -fno-inline -Wall -fPIC -m64 -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -I".." -o "/home/ben/development/boost/test/build/develop/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/phoenix/test/adapt_function.test/clang-linux-3.6~msan~c14_libc++/debug/address-model-64/architecture-x86/debug-symbols-off/function/adapt_function.o" "../libs/phoenix/test/function/adapt_function.cpp" There are numerous failures with this test set on Phoenix and I set out to find out why. Most of the failures are like this: SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value ??:0 std::__1::basic_ostream<char, std::__1::char_traits<char> >& std::__1::__put_character_sequence<char, std::__1::char_traits<char> >(std::__1::basic_ostream<char, std::__1::char_traits<char> >&, char const*, unsigned long) Exiting I think this is coming from the boost::report_errors function defined in boost/core/lightweight_test.hpp I have put some temporary tests on to develop for Phoenix which contain only various calls to test the lightweight test. These are called aa_test0 to 3 so they will come at the top of the table. Unfortunately tests are not reporting at the moment so I don't have any results. There are also failures on the testing of Boost Core with the same test set. I thought I would report this without waiting for the results in the hope that it can be sorted out for the 1.58.0 release. John

4 8

[optional] Problem with new boost::none
by Marcel Raad 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

Hi, as mentioned in another thread, there are compilation problems with the reworked none_t on MSVC when using precompiled headers. To reproduce: precompiled header stdafx.h: #pragma once #include <boost/optional.hpp> s.cpp: #include "stdafx.h" struct s { void f(boost::optional<int> const& = boost::none) {} }; On MSVC12, this results in the error message: s.cpp(3): error C3083: ' ?? A0x06d21c56': the symbol to the left of a '::' must be a type

1 0

Re: [boost] [Boost-testing] Have we lost a bunch of testers recently?
by Jim Bell 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

On 2015-03-21 9:03 AM, Niklas Angare wrote: > (I'm cross-posting this here for better visibility - please send any > responses to the main developers list) > > "Peter Dimov" <lists(a)pdimov.com> wrote: >> and I have the feeling that a bunch of columns that used to be there no >> longer are. I see no tests on OS X, for instance, no tests from >> Sandia at >> all, and very slim C++11 coverage. > > Looking at the ftp directory for develop, these runners haven't > uploaded in > the past ten days: > > Sandia - 10-12 runners, last upload 2015-02-09 > jc-bell MinGW-* / VC8 / VC10 / FBSD / SUSE - 11 runners, I run the jc-bell tests, but can only run one a day at best. The tests are now falling off faster than they did before, and I've been protesting (for master branch). See: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2015/03/220662.php HTH

1 0

[GSOC] Proposal template question.
by Damian Vicino 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

Hi, Are we suppose to keep the template text in a Q/A fashion or the idea is to write it all over? I started writing the proposal doing replacement of the original text, but now I’m wondering if maybe having all the original text inlined facilitates referencing and discussing between the reviewers. What is the preferred way? Best regards, Damian

2 1

[GSoC '15] Requesting review!
by Abhinav Tripathi 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

I have submitted a proposal on GSoC regarding 'Boost Document Library' two days ago. I haven't recieved a single review yet. Mentors Please do review. . Abhinav

2 1

Boost 1_58_0_b1_rc2 is available for testing
by Marshall Clow 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

Release candidate files for 1.58.0 beta 1 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge. Changes since rc1: * Added the new libraries endian, sort, and winapi. IMPORTANT NOTE: There is a bug with the build scripts; you have to specify the address-mode and architecture to b2. I used: ./b2 address-model=64 architecture=x86 to test this. The files (and associated md5s) are: MD5 (boost_1_58_0_b1_rc2.7z) = c58623e8c3d48154bdb1fa2ee5cdbfab MD5 (boost_1_58_0_b1_rc2.tar.bz2) = 94480c2d9de3804a1a4b626a7828bec0 MD5 (boost_1_58_0_b1_rc2.tar.gz) = f7d4b398388c13ca30960c92b8d6342f MD5 (boost_1_58_0_b1_rc2.zip) = 2e9bdfd8dab269a69e4ea4e5ae5b6d47 Thanks! -- The release managers

13 27

[exception] c++11 updates
by Ryan Burn 21 Mar '15

21 Mar '15

I've been working with boost exception and looking at the develop branch on github it looks like much of it hasn't been updated for c++11. Is anyone already working on this already? If not, I'd like to make the following changes: - add rvalue-reference overloads to the error_info class ( https://github.com/boostorg/exception/blob/develop/include/boost/exception/…) and elsewhere so that you can do things like throw my_error() << my_info(std::move(a)) - replace occurrences of "throw()" with a macro (something like BOOST_NO_THROW_SPECIFICATION) that expands to "throw()" if compiling with c++98 and "noexcept" if compiling >= c++11 would these changes be ok? Thanks, Ryan

2 2

Re: [boost] enhanced vector and deque competency test
by Islam Taha 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

Thank you again I think it’s solved right now, you can check it Thanks in advance Islam Taha

3 3

[1.58] Request to add fix for ticket #6766 to 1.58 release
by Aparna Kumta 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

Boost ticket #6766 ( https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6766 ) affects several of our tests running with Oracle Solaris Studio compiler. It prevents building of libboost_unit_test_framework.a which in turn causes tests from many of the libraries (accumulators, algorithm, assign, lexical_cast, msm, odeint, polygon, range and sync) to fail due to a dependency on libboost_unit_test_framework.a. A PR for this has been submitted.https://github.com/boostorg/test/pull/36 This fix alone causes the pass rate for Boost 1.58 with the Oracle Solaris Studio compiler to increase by about 15%. This fix is not in the 'develop' branch yet. We would very much appreciate if this could be considered for putback into the Boost 1.58 release. Thanks, Aparna

1 0