- Boost - lists.boost.org

[iostreams]Bugs in dual seekable mode
by Jorge Lodos 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Currently there are no tests for dual seekable streams. New tests (dual_seekable_test.cpp in the ticket) uncover the following bugs: 1. The functions test_seekable_in_chars and test_seekable_in_chunks in test/detail/verification.hpp use seekp in several places where seekg should be used. This has no effect when there is a single head but does not work when the stream is dual seekable. 2. indirect_streambuf::seek_impl does not work for dual seeking. The problem is that both heads are modified for both input and output operations. Since the modification is the same (just resetting the pointers) everything works when there is a single head. This is a duplicate of https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7681. 3. The function shared_buffer() does not consider dual_seekable stream buffers as shared. 4. The function init_put_area() does not consider the existing input position. This is a duplicate of https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8572. With the attached (in the ticket) versions of verification.hpp and indirect_streambuf.hpp all previously existing tests passed. I recommend adding the new tests in dual_seekable_test.cpp. I have created the ticket https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/10561 Best regards Jorge

1 0

[thread] Specific old move semantics usage
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

Hi all, I would like to remove the specific move semantics included in Boost.Thread as it was flawed. This has been replaced by the Boost.Move one long time ago. Is there someone still using it? Could I at least define by the default (even for BOOST_THREAD_VERSION 2) BOOST_THREAD_USES_MOVE for Boost 1.57? Best, Vicente

2 1

[Modularization] Range and Spirit dependencies
by Stephen Kelly 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

Hello, Boost 1.55 has been out for some weeks. I repeat my recommendation to remove the Boost.Algorithm dependency from Boost.Range and the Boost.Serialization dependency from Boost.Spirit. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/251966/focus=252090 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/251966/focus=251968 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/252250/focus=252293 Thanks, Steve.

3 7

questions regarding dependency reports(s)
by Robert Ramey 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

I've been looking at the question of "dependencies" and I would like to know a little more about how they are generated. I've looked at: a) http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report-6d1f271/serialization.html b) http://www.steveire.com/boost/2014sept16_serialization.png c) bcp documentation And it doesn't seem that they all produce the same list of dependencies. a) doesn't include any *.cpp files. So I assume that it contains less than the true number of dependencies. That is if a *.cpp file includes a header as part of it's implementation and not it's interface, it wouldn't be included. b) produces a very intimidating graph. I'm not sure what the rules are for it's generation. I'm guessing that it uses dependencies at the library level rather than the *.cpp level which might make things look worse than they are. c) BCP seems pretty exhaustive in that it cans all the code in all the *.cpp libraries, tests, examples etc. For lots of applications - e.g. if I wanted to include a boost library with my application but not all the tests, It would generate a likely much larger subset than I need. But maybe not. If my application includes the boost library.dll then I guess I have to include it all. This raises an interesting question to me. Suppose I want to distribute my app with source and I include a CMake which just doesn't build the libraries but just includes the relevant *.cpp files in the application build itself? This would make my application depend upon the smallest subset of boost possible. What would it take to make a version of BCP which, given an arbitrary group of source files, returns a list of headers and *.cpp files which could be used to build the app? We know from an intuitive basis that we want to give the option of delivering a smaller boost, but we've always thought that that means delivering a library subset. Is this really what we want? What would users do with the smaller subset? (Besides complain that its not small enough?) How about if we tweaked BCP to deliver just a subset of files relevant to the target? Would that make them happier? Would it get us off the hook for trying to "solve" what the dependencies are? Just thinking out loud here. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/questions-regarding-dependency-reports-s… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

7 8

Re: [boost] Stefanus Du Toit
by Hartmut Kaiser 26 Sep '14

26 Sep '14

http://emlakdanismanlari.com/izvusl/xqwkkozimojmnoisxjsllmsfkjpoaiycejluiocg

1 0

New C++14 config macros - opinions wanted
by John Maddock 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

There is a pull request to add new config macros for C++14 features (https://github.com/boostorg/config/pull/39) I have a few questions really, particularly for those more familiar with C++14 than me: * Do we need these? * Are these the correct names? * Are the proposed tests correct? Thanks, John.

8 9

TravisCI and Coverall usage policies in Boost
by Antony Polukhin 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Hi, Motivation. I'd like to show some useful stuff using the Boost.Variant library as an example. Take a look at this link: https://coveralls.io/builds/1224886 It shows tests coverage and has a nice interface to get info about untested things. For example: * if we take a look at this https://coveralls.io/files/293662719 , we'll see that `polymorphic_get` was not tested for extracting type that is not in a variant variable * if we take a look at this https://coveralls.io/files/293662720 we'll see that swapping of recursive wrappers was not tested All that stuff was achieved by adding the https://github.com/apolukhin/variant/blob/travisci/.travis.yml file and turning a switch at coveralls.io site. Now let's take a look at the regression tests of variant: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/master/developer/variant.html . There we can see a indirect_travisci_tests tester. There's nothing special about that tester, except the fact that results are gathered using foreign TravisCI service. We can integrate foreign service to do regression reporting for us. We can even make this separately for each of the Boost libraries, triggering test run on every commit and reporting the results directly to README.md file (for example https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL#test-results) The problem. A few things make me nervous. First of all, TravisCI requires some access permissions to the repo. I'm not a github expert so I'm not 100% sure that this is safe. Second one, is that there is no policy in Boost about usage of foreign services like TravisCI and Coveralls. The questions. Is is OK to commit to Boost repos .travis.yml files without enabling TravisCI runs? Do we need a license note in .travis.yml file? Can we enable automated testing using TravisCI for a Boost repo? Can we enable automated tests coverage using Coverall for a Boost repo? -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

5 9

[modularization] Extract xml_archive from serialization
by Stephen Kelly 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Hi there, The biggest single problem of coupling in boost comes from the spirit dependency in the serialization library. This makes serialization itself very (and needlessly) heavy: http://www.steveire.com/boost/2014sept16_serialization.png Spirit is used only by the xml archiving classes. I recommend extracting an xml_archive library from serialization. That way, serialization no longer depends on spirit, which is already an improvement: http://www.steveire.com/boost/2014sept16_serialization-after-extract-xml_ar… Further, the serialization classes for boost::variant and boost::array are in the serialization library. This is not appropriate, as the serialization classes for all other types are in the libraries providing the types. Move the serialization classes to those libraries. mkdir ../variant/include/boost/serialization mv include/boost/serialization/variant.hpp ../variant/include/boost/serialization mkdir ../array/include/boost/serialization mv include/boost/serialization/array.hpp ../array/include/boost/serialization This is a large improvement: http://www.steveire.com/boost/2014sept16_serialization-after-type-move.png There is more that can be done. These things can be done now. I recommend doing them. Thanks, Steve.

8 23

[modularization] Are modular releases a goal or a non-goal?
by Stephen Kelly 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Hello, I can download one monolithic tarball to get Boost 1.56: http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost/1.56.0 And I get all of it. There are no separate 'modular Boost' tarballs so that I can download what I want and not what I don't. Compare to Qt which provides both monolithic source tarballs: http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/5.3/5.3.2/single/ and modular source tarballs: http://download.qt-project.org/official_releases/qt/5.3/5.3.2/submodules/ Is something similar to this a goal or a non-goal for 'Boost modularization'? Thanks, Steve.

10 32

[intrusive] Possible bug in bstree_algorithms.hpp
by Lars Hagström 25 Sep '14

25 Sep '14

Hi, I've just upgraded to boost 1.56 and I've run into a problem. I get an infinite loop inside insert_equal_lower_bound_check(...) in bstree_algorithms.hpp. I'm using that file indirectly through Boost.Interprocess. I've not been able to penetrate exactly what that function does or whether there is indeed a bug in it. But I did look at the version that was in 1.55 (called insert_equal_check_impl(...) there), and to me it looks like there is at least one unexpected change: A ! has been removed on the line where the branches are compared, which to me would mean that we put the wrong branch into x. Again, I don't really understand what is going on in that function, so I might well be completely wrong. Cheers Lars

2 22