- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re: [boost] [Trac] Catch-22: Captcha Errors on legitimate submissions (fwd)
by DongInn Kim 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi, I have looked into the trac admin page to see if there is anything useful for this issue and I found that the current Jim Bell’s tickets and comments were filtered out as a spam. http://www.crest.iu.edu/~dikim/spamfilter.png The spamfilter on trac is not perfect. It just filters out anything if they meet some criteria that the filter setup. I have not setup the filter criteria (Yes, I have installed the spam filter as you guys requested). It seems that it needs to train the spam filter with some admin’s interaction on the filtered tickets as a spam or ham. I just tried to make four Jim Bell’s ticket/comments selected as a ham. I hope the spam filter does a little better job on Jim Bell’s ticket next time. The following users are the admin of the boost trac system and I hope that they need to train the spam filter from time to time in case this kind of incidents happen. az_sw_dude admin bemandawes admin dave admin dgregor admin eric_niebler admin grafik admin johnmaddock admin marshall admin -PS- I do not follow this mailing list. If someone forwards an email to me like this, I can see what happens. Regards, -- - DongInn On Nov 1, 2013, at 9:35 PM, Jeremiah Willcock <jewillco(a)crest.iu.edu> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jim Bell <Jim(a)JC-Bell.com> > To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:25:01 -0500 > Subject: [boost] [Trac] Catch-22: Captcha Errors on legitimate submissions > Reply-To: boost(a)lists.boost.org > X-perlmx-spam: Gauge=X, Probability=10%, Report=' > TO_IN_SUBJECT 0.5, REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, > HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, > BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, > BODY_SIZE_700_799 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, > __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, > __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, > __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, > __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, > __TO_IN_SUBJECT 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, > __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0' > > I had a ticket attachment and comment both rejected from a "captcha error," so I decided to open a Trac ticket on the captcha mechanism itself. But guess what? THAT ticket was also rejected by the captcha error. Catch-22! > > So I'm posting it here. > > I get: > -------------------------------- > Captcha Error > Submission rejected as potential spam (StopForumSpam says this is spam (username)) > > Trac thinks your submission might be Spam. To prove otherwise please provide a response to the following. > -------------------------------- > > But there's nothing following to which to provide a response. Is it mis-configured? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

5 4

Re: [boost] [modularization] Dependency to Boost.Exceptionunavoidable?
by Niall Douglas 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

On 3 Nov 2013 at 9:08, Robert Ramey wrote: > I don't think it's a great idea for a library author to make the > requirements for using his library more stringent than is absolutely > necessary. I generally agree. With the exception of features specified to be part of the C++ language standard. Those any C++ codebase has the right to assume are always available. > The way BOOST_EXCEPTION used to be was correct - Implemented as a throw if > the platform supported it, and calling some defined function if the > platform doesn't support them. This actually works well when exceptions > are not used as part of the code logic but only to handle "error > conditions". This practice is generally recommended and many follow it. > In this context, there's not reason not couple one's library to the > existence of RTTI or an related compiler feature. I think my personal difficulty here is that lack of RTTI can be worked around (e.g. Boost.TypeIndex), whereas presence or lack of exceptions means completely different design of a C++ codebase, with a non-exception safe design being utterly and more importantly permanently defective when used in the presence of exceptions - a rather important distinction. I can certainly see that by ruling out exception safety during design that one can get code to market quicker - assuming that one does not save significant implementation time by making use of libraries which assume exceptions work (e.g. the C++11 STL), because as soon as you mix in exception assuming code with non-exception capable code you have interop problems. > "it was/is an interesting choice by a large, modern, non-embedded C++ > use case." > > I think that boost should provide more support for embedded systems - not > less. I agree in the sense that hard realtime use cases for Boost where there is guaranteed worst case execution times is incredibly important, and indeed for those cases where Boost.TypeIndex can replace RTTI it will eliminate RTTI's unbounded execution times. That makes exception throwing the only unbounded worst case execution time scenario remaining. There is nothing about an embedded system that implies exceptions ought to be disabled though, especially with any semi-recent compiler and that your codebase isn't regularly throwing exceptions while it runs. You do tend to lose a register and use more stack space in code generation, but a reasonably modern bottom end embedded CPU is fairly tolerant of that nowadays thanks to having at least a L1 cache which hides a lot of the consequences of extra but unused stack usage. It's not like on 6502 with its three registers incapable of even burst read/writes to RAM for sure, or even an ARM v2 where stack writes across RAM page line boundaries stalled the CPU. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/

1 0

[1.55] Request for permission to merge fix for chrono.
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi, I would like to merge if possible this fix https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/86547 for this bug https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/9337 . The bug was introduced on [75920] <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/75920>, so long time ago :( Please let me know. Vicente

3 4

Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail
by Ahmed Charles 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Then call them modules, tell users that libraries are made of modules and that's it. The fact that most libraries have a module called core or detail that is shared with most other libraries is utterly irrelevant to users. The fact that this allows them to use libraries while downloading and installing less other libraries is useful. ________________________________ From: Daniel Pfeifer Sent: 11/2/2013 12:23 AM To: Boost Developers List Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail 2013/11/2 Ahmed Charles <acharles(a)outlook.com>: > > >> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 22:34:07 +0000 >> From: daniel(a)calamity.org.uk >> To: boost(a)lists.boost.org >> Subject: Re: [boost] [modularization] Improving/splitting up detail >> >> On 1 November 2013 22:10, Daniel Pfeifer <daniel(a)pfeifer-mail.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> boost/detail/xxx.hpp >> >> >> >> Used by YYY and ZZZ, move to "common" >> > >> > Isn't there already a dependency from YYY to ZZZ? Could we put xxx.hpp >> > to ZZZ instead? Maybe a "common" is not even needed. >> >> We should be careful about making changes just because they fit the >> current dependencies. Dependencies are not constant, we don't want to >> be in a situation where the dependency graph falls apart because of a >> future change to one of these headers. Also, if a header is in detail >> it should be potentially useful for future libraries which wouldn't >> want to depend on ZZZ (if it isn't, then it shouldn't have been put in >> detail in the first place). > > The goal is to create two 'modules' or libraries: We had that originally. They were called "detail" and "core". How do we describe those libraries to users? Those might be the Frequently Questioned Answers: A: It is a Boost library that you should not use. Q: If it is not useful, why does it exist? A: It is used internally by several Boost libraries. Q: If it is so useful, why should I not use it too? I prefer to have no such "detail" libraries at all. Everything that is useful to a broader audience should be in utility. Everything else should be an implementation detail of one library. When one library depends on the implementation detail of another library (ie. includes a 'detail' header from it), that is a smell, OK. But at least it is hidden from users. -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

[config] clang deleted functions bugged
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi, Clang has a bug with deleted functions (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7754564/clang-error-message-when-using-c…) Please, could we comment these two lines until clang fixes the bug //#if !__has_feature(cxx_deleted_functions) # define BOOST_NO_CXX11_DELETED_FUNCTIONS //#endif Thanks, Vicente

3 8

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [1.55.0] Release candidate 2 available
by Tom Kent 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jeff Flinn <Jeffrey.Flinn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2013 6:05 PM, Marshall Clow wrote: > >> >> On Nov 3, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Tom Kent <lists(a)teeks99.com >> <mailto:lists@teeks99.com>> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> RC2 files for 1.55.0 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. >>> >>> The files (and associated md5s) are: >>> 93780777cfbf999a600f62883bd54b17 >>> *boost_1_55_0_rc2.tar.gz >>> d6eef4b4cacb2183f2bf265a5a03a354 >>> *boost_1_55_0_rc2.tar.bz2 >>> 8aca361a4713a1f491b0a5e33fee0f1f >>> *boost_1_55_0_rc2.zip >>> 4e5bbc15fc8c80df8be428f8a5b5a823 *boost_1_55_0_rc2.7z >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- The release managers >>> >>> >>> When is the release expected? (How long do we have to try building?) >>> >> >> We try to ship an RC on Wednesday, then release on Monday. >> If there are no problems found in this RC, I expect we'll release on >> Friday or Saturday. >> > > Serialization still fails to build on VS2013. This is due to tickets > #9279/#8750 not being merged to release from trunk. Robert sent me a direct > email saying "See my previous post on this thread to see why we're stuck > here." but I've not been able to figure out to what he's referring. > > Jeff I'm also seeing the serialization failures with msvc-12.0. Tom

2 1

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [1.55.0] Release candidate 2 available
by Marshall Clow 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

On Nov 3, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Jeff Flinn <jeffrey.flinn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/3/2013 6:05 PM, Marshall Clow wrote: >> >> On Nov 3, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Tom Kent <lists(a)teeks99.com >> <mailto:lists@teeks99.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> RC2 files for 1.55.0 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. >>> >>> The files (and associated md5s) are: >>> 93780777cfbf999a600f62883bd54b17 >>> *boost_1_55_0_rc2.tar.gz >>> d6eef4b4cacb2183f2bf265a5a03a354 >>> *boost_1_55_0_rc2.tar.bz2 >>> 8aca361a4713a1f491b0a5e33fee0f1f *boost_1_55_0_rc2.zip >>> 4e5bbc15fc8c80df8be428f8a5b5a823 *boost_1_55_0_rc2.7z >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> -- The release managers >>> >>> >>> When is the release expected? (How long do we have to try building?) >> >> We try to ship an RC on Wednesday, then release on Monday. >> If there are no problems found in this RC, I expect we'll release on >> Friday or Saturday. > > Serialization still fails to build on VS2013. This is due to tickets #9279/#8750 not being merged to release from trunk. Robert sent me a direct email saying "See my previous post on this thread to see why we're stuck here." but I've not been able to figure out to what he's referring. I think he was referring to this email: On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Robert Ramey <robertmacleranramey(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've been trying to get these changes in. I grouped a number of the changes into one batch. I group them because it takes me a long time to test any changes. The fixes seemed simple, but to no one's surprise, they turned out to have some unexpected wrinkles. Right now I'm pending an answer to my recent question on the mailing list regarding TYPE_TRAIT deprecation. Once that gets done I would be ready to merge the trunk into the release. I don't think things are going to fall into place before 1.55 release though. It doesn't sound to me like he's ready to put those changes out into a release at this time. -- Marshall

1 0

[endian] status?
by Michael Marcin 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

I need to read/write some structs as binary data over an asio tcp socket and convert host<->network byte order. IIRC the endian library was supposed to clean this process up substantially but I can't find it. I thought it passed review years ago but I could be misremembering.

2 2

Re: [boost] [modularization] Dependency to Boost.Exceptionunavoidable?
by Emil Dotchevski 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge(a)nedprod.com> wrote: > On 1 Nov 2013 at 16:01, Emil Dotchevski wrote: > >> 1. If BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS is defined, libraries should not throw. One >> option to implement that behavior is to pass exception objects (of the >> usual documented library-defined types) to boost::throw_exception. > > I wonder how useful supporting exceptions disabled is in recent years? I agree that many Boost libraries are impractical with exception handling disabled, but there is no harm done in supporting BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS via boost::throw_exception, since its specification does not allow it to return. -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode

1 0

[1.55] Request for permission to merge
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

Hi, I would like to merge if it is possible this fix https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/86540 for this bug https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/9319. Please let me know. Vicente

4 5