- Boost - lists.boost.org

[chrono] Outdated information in documentation
by Björn Pollex 10 Aug '13

10 Aug '13

In the getting started section [1] it refers to an issue with the BOOST_ERROR_CODE_HEADER_ONLY macro which seems to be fixed by now. Regards, Björn [1] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/chrono/users_guide.html#chron…

2 1

[date time] std::out_of_range thrown on date 2012-5-29
by Matthijs Möhlmann 09 Aug '13

09 Aug '13

Hello all, Following piece of program gives a std::out_of_range exception: #include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp> int main(int argc, char **argv) { boost::posix_time::ptime datetime; datetime = boost::posix_time::time_from_string("2012-5-29"); return 0; } Compiled with the following line: g++ -o main -lboost_date_time -g -std=c++11 main.cpp Output: matthijs@hammer % ./main terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::out_of_range' what(): basic_string::at zsh: abort ./main Platform: x86_64 Boost version: 1.54 Compiler version: gcc 4.8 Where can I officially report bugs? Regards, Matthijs Möhlmann

3 3

[move] forward with lvalue ref template param
by Andrew Ho 08 Aug '13

08 Aug '13

Hi during my implementation of unique_ptr I noticed that boost::forward doesn't play nicely with lvalue ref types. int a; int &b = a; int &c = std::forward<int&>(b); // compiles fine int &d = boost::forward<int&>(b); // compiler error I did a little playing around with the declarations of forward and I managed to get this to work: // if T is not a lvalue ref and movable template <class T> inline typename ::boost::move_detail::enable_if_c < enable_move_utility_emulation<T>::value && ::boost::move_detail::is_rv<T>::value && !::boost::move_detail::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value, const T &>::type forward(typename ::boost::move_detail::identity<T>::type &x) BOOST_NOEXCEPT { return const_cast<T&>(x); } // if T is not a lvalue ref and not movable template <class T> inline typename ::boost::move_detail::enable_if_c < enable_move_utility_emulation<T>::value && !::boost::move_detail::is_rv<T>::value && !::boost::move_detail::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value, const T &>::type forward(const typename ::boost::move_detail::identity<T>::type &x) BOOST_NOEXCEPT { return x; } // if T is a lvalue ref template <class T> inline typename ::boost::move_detail::enable_if_c < ::boost::move_detail::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value , T>::type forward(T x) BOOST_NOEXCEPT { return x; } Basically, this forces all calls to forward<A&> to simply return the lvalue ref (const-ness is maintained, I think), otherwise it does whatever boost::forward did before. As far as I can tell, this doesn't break boost::forward, and it enables it to properly handle taking lvalue refs. Am I right in my assumptions? Are there any cases where this would fail to produce standard-compliant/desired results?

1 0

[git] eol issues and fetchRecurseSubmodules = on-demand
by Ahmed Charles 08 Aug '13

08 Aug '13

Two things: 1. tools\build\v2\engine\build.bat has LF instead of CRLF for line endings, which causes bootstrap.bat (which has the right endings) to not work properly. It seems like the top level .gitattributes doesn't apply to submodules. 2. After cloning and fetching modular boost each day for a while, I finally figured that waiting an hour or so to sync could probably be improved. So I read the docs and tested adding fetchRecurseSubmodules = on-demand for each submodule in .gitsubmodules and it seems to work much faster with the same result. (It would result in differences once the submodules can change without the super-project changing, but currently, I don't think that is the case.) Perhaps it's with considering?

2 5

[boost/spirit] numeric policy
by Brian Schrom 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

I've had the case where I needed to retain formatting information for a number (general, fixed, scientific) and was nicely accomplished by extending the policy, but needed to have a begin_parse() and end_parse() for the policy to be complete. It seems that it makes some sense or is this accomplished another way? Maybe something to consider for policies in general? Index: qi/numeric/real_policies.hpp =================================================================== --- qi/numeric/real_policies.hpp (revision 85166) +++ qi/numeric/real_policies.hpp (working copy) @@ -28,6 +28,18 @@ static bool const allow_trailing_dot = true; static bool const expect_dot = false; + template <typename Attribute> + static void + begin_parse(Attribute& attr_) + { + } + + template <typename Attribute> + static void + end_parse(Attribute& attr_,bool /* result */) + { + } + template <typename Iterator> static bool parse_sign(Iterator& /*first*/, Iterator const& /*last*/) Index: qi/numeric/detail/real_impl.hpp =================================================================== --- qi/numeric/detail/real_impl.hpp (revision 85166) +++ qi/numeric/detail/real_impl.hpp (working copy) @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ parse(Iterator& first, Iterator const& last, Attribute& attr, RealPolicies const& p) { + p.begin_parse(attr); if (first == last) return false; Iterator save = first; @@ -257,6 +258,7 @@ // If we got a negative sign, negate the number traits::assign_to(traits::negate(neg, n), attr); + p.end_parse(attr, true); // maybe this should return a bool and be the return value? // Success!!! return true; }

4 7

[intrusive] Compilation problem with gcc 4.7
by Hartmut Kaiser 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

In code which compiled just fine I'm now seeing: In file included from /opt/boost/trunk-debug/boost/intrusive/slist_hook.hpp:24:0, from /opt/boost/trunk-debug/boost/intrusive/slist.hpp:21, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/lcos/local/mu tex.hpp:23, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/runtime/compo nents/server/wrapper_heap.hpp:20, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/runtime/compo nents/server/managed_component_base.hpp:13, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/lcos/base_lco .hpp:12, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/lcos/base_lco _with_value.hpp:11, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/performance_c ounters/counters.hpp:12, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/runtime/compo nents/server/runtime_support.hpp:32, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/hpx/runtime.hpp:1 2, from /opt/buildbot/slave/hpx_gcc47_x8664_boosttrunk_debug/build/src/hpx_main.cpp: 7: /opt/boost/trunk-debug/boost/intrusive/detail/generic_hook.hpp: At global scope: /opt/boost/trunk-debug/boost/intrusive/detail/generic_hook.hpp:134:55: error: declaration of typedef struct boost::intrusive::hooktags<typename GetNodeAlgorithms::type::node_traits, Tag, LinkMode, BaseHookType> boost::intrusive::generic_hook<GetNodeAlgorithms, Tag, LinkMode, BaseHookType>::hooktags [-fpermissive] /opt/boost/trunk-debug/boost/intrusive/detail/generic_hook.hpp:84:8: error: changes meaning of hooktags from struct boost::intrusive::hooktags<typename GetNodeAlgorithms::type::node_traits, Tag, LinkMode, BaseHookType> [-fpermissive] Ion, could you fix this, please? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 2

MinGW test failures
by Andrey Semashev 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

Hi, I can see that almost all MinGW tests (jc-bell.com runner) for trunk are failing, at least for Boost.Log [1] and Boost.Atomic [2]. However, test logs don't show any errors, only compiler warnings. Does anyone know what is the problem? Also, this is not the first time when I see no errors in logs while the test is marked as failed. This is really unhelpful. Are some logs being lost by the test running suite? [1] http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/log.html [2] http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/atomic.html

2 1

[predef] Boost detail/endian.hpp
by Rene Rivera 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

FYI.. I just tested, locally, and checked in the replacement for the "boost/detail/endian.hpp". This file is now non-BSL license free. If this is a header you rely on I would appreciate it if you could do your own testing to make sure it lives up to the previous header's functionality. Thanks, Rene. -- -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo

2 1

Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
by Brian Wood 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

Dave Abrahams wrote: >>on Tue Aug 06 2013, Brian Wood <woodbrian77-AT-gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I was going to ask for an update on these things, but this >> will do. I think it's just morass without an e. It sounds like >> it's time to reboot. I haven't followed this real closely, but >> know a lot of effort has gone into trying to preserve >> information in the conversion. That may be too much to ask. > > Boy, you really haven't been paying attention: that part is done. > Throwing out all that work at this point because you get the sense "it's > time to reboot" would be... well, pick your adjective. Too many are > flying through my brain right now to choose. I thought the use of the word morass was honest and putting it mildly. I'm not saying to abandon the goal. I recommend a modular approach, but it seems the years are passing without much happening. -- Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net

1 0

Re: [boost] Removing old config macro and increasing compiler requirements.
by Brian Wood 07 Aug '13

07 Aug '13

Dave Abrahams wrote: > That's how Boost works. One of the ideas of the Git separation (and > hopefully eventual Ryppl) transition is to give maintainers more of a > sense of control over these things. I'm sure the commitment to quality > is there, but I think there's probably a lot of resignation over the > seemingly-intractable morasse. I was going to ask for an update on these things, but this will do. I think it's just morass without an e. It sounds like it's time to reboot. I haven't followed this real closely, but know a lot of effort has gone into trying to preserve information in the conversion. That may be too much to ask. -- Brian Wood Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us. http://webEbenezer.net

3 2