- Boost - lists.boost.org

Request for permission to apply a multi library patch (misspell on comment only)
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

HI, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8558 "some misspell fixes" contains a patch that concerns some misspell on comments only code or on documentation. The patch is quite big and concerns almost all the Boost libraries. Could I apply it all at once, e.g. just after the release 1.54 is delivered? Best, Vicente

1 0

[1.54.0] release branch reopened for bug fixes ONLY
by Marshall Clow 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Now that we have released the first beta, the release branch is open for bug fixes. Only bug fixes, please.[*] No new features. No new libraries. You do not need a release manager's approval to merge a bug fix. The earlier you can merge your bug fixes, the better. The branch will close again for final release preparations on June 24. As usual, you can see the release calendar here: http://www.boost.org/development/index.html [*] Changes to documentation are always allowed. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki

1 0

weirdness in documentation of boost::chrono?
by Anthony Foiani 01 Jun '13

01 Jun '13

Greetings -- The online reference for boost::chrono seems to have an odd error in it. If one looks at: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/doc/html/chrono/reference.html#chrono.… (or: http://preview.tinyurl.com/lcl8j3c ) There is an "operator*==" (note double '='). The actual live link is to "operator*=", and the link works. I took a quick look, and this glitch does not seem to be present in the HTML documentation included in the 1_53_0 tarball. Am I just imagining things? Is my browser being stunningly clever in a way I don't understand? Thanks, Tony

2 1

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [Thread] Can't compile package_task code with 1.54
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 01 Jun '13

01 Jun '13

Le 01/06/13 07:30, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit : > Le 01/06/13 00:56, Szymon Gatner a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> I just tried to compile my 1.52- based code with 1.54 beta and run >> into package_task compilation issue. >> >> In 1.52 I was using BOOST_THREAD_VERSION=3 define but with 1.54 I >> complied with =4. >> >> Test program: >> >> #define BOOST_THREAD_VERSION 4 >> >> #include <boost/thread/future.hpp> >> #include <boost/function.hpp> >> >> struct MyFunc >> { >> void operator()()const {} >> }; >> >> int main() >> { >> boost::function<void()> f; >> MyFunc mf; >> >> boost::packaged_task<void()> t1(f); // error 1 >> boost::packaged_task<void()> t2(mf); // error 2 >> } >> >> >> error 1 being: >> >> d:\devel\boost_1_54_0_beta1\boost\thread\future.hpp(2848): error >> C2664: >> 'boost::detail::task_object<F,R>::task_object(boost::detail::task_object<F,R> >> &)' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'boost::function<Signature>' to >> 'boost::detail::task_object<F,R> &' >> >> and error 2 similarly: >> >> d:\devel\boost_1_54_0_beta1\boost\thread\future.hpp(2848): error >> C2664: >> 'boost::detail::task_object<F,R>::task_object(boost::detail::task_object<F,R> >> &)' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'MyFunc' to >> 'boost::detail::task_object<F,R> &' >> >> (I tried with custom functor because I thought maybe error was >> related to boost function) >> >> Compiling with Visual Studio 2012 Update 3 >> >> > Hi, > > this is related to https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596 which > is fixed now, but maybe it doesn't works for you. > Note that the trunk regression test since revision 84414 run with this > compiler pass ( > libs/thread/test/sync/futures/packaged_task/func_ctor_pass.cpp) > <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/branches/release/libs/thread/test/…> > http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/thread.html. > > Unfortunately not a single msvc tester has run after revision 84468 on > release branch. > > I have no the possibility to reproduce it now. Please could you send > the whole log? (privately if you prefer? Or via a ticket? > I have found the error. My tests don't test for packaged_task<void()>. The following patch should fix the issue (see attached file) Please could you apply it a tell me if it fix with your compiler? Best, Vicente svn diff future.hpp Index: future.hpp =================================================================== --- future.hpp (revision 84547) +++ future.hpp (working copy) @@ -2362,18 +2362,12 @@ task_object(task_object&); public: F f; -#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES - task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_): - f(boost::forward<F>(f_)) - {} -#else task_object(F const& f_): f(f_) {} task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_): - f(boost::move(f_)) // TODO forward + f(boost::move(f_)) {} -#endif #if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK && defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD) void do_apply(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(ArgTypes) ... args) @@ -2616,18 +2610,12 @@ task_object(task_object&); public: F f; -#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES - task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_): - f(boost::forward<F>(f_)) - {} -#else task_object(F const& f_): f(f_) {} task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_): - f(boost::move(f_)) // TODO forward + f(boost::move(f_)) {} -#endif #if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK && defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD) void do_apply(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(ArgTypes) ... args)

1 0

Re: [boost] Migrating www.boost.org to another server
by DongInn Kim 31 May '13

31 May '13

Any news from Beman? Regards, -- - DongInn On May 21, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Daniel James <daniel(a)calamity.org.uk> wrote: > On 21 May 2013 05:00, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 20, 2013, at 8:54 PM, Daniel James <daniel(a)calamity.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 21 May 2013 02:34, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> [ Off-list ] >>>> Just as an update - Beman was _not_ at C++Now this year (the first time he has missed it). >>> >>> Do you know if he's available? >> >> Well, not at the moment - he's on the east coast (GMT-4), but in general, yes. > > I'll send him an email later then. Cc'd emails can get lost in the > noise of the list.

5 35

May I ask community to make a small review of the high-level network library we released?
by Dmitry Timoshenko 31 May '13

31 May '13

We released the beta version accessible here http://libunicomm.org. We would be really appreciated if this could happen. Thanx, Dmitry.

1 0

Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
by Beman Dawes 31 May '13

31 May '13

If the steering committee's Git Modularization Review vote were held today, I've vote no since I think that we aren't yet ready. Since my concerns are apparently easy to fix technically, I'm mentioning them here to give Dave and Daniel a chance to address them before the actual Git Modularization Review starts. Concerns: 1) The mapping of svn branch names to modular git branch names needs to be revised: Svn "trunk" needs to become modular git "develop", not "master". Modular git needs to have a branch "master" that represents the latest stable release. Whether the content is identical to the last boost release or to branches/release at point of conversion needs to be decided, as does what the history, if any, of this branch looks like. 2) The procedures described in https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/TryModBoost need to be updated, the dependency on CMake needs to be removed, and the procedures need to work. These are blocking issues because they prevent development and testing of modular boost testing procedures, developers procedures, release procedures, installation procedures, and documentation. Until they are resolved, the entire modular boost conversion rests on the shoulders of Dave and Daniel. Once they are resolved, others can pitch in and help since from that point forward we will be in a pure git environment and detailed knowledge of the conversion process from svn is not required. --Beman

9 25

[Atomic] Rationale for preventing copy construction/assignment?
by Collin Dauphinee 31 May '13

31 May '13

I've recently noticed that boost::atomic<T> prevents assignment from boost::atomic<T>, as well as copy construction. I'm having trouble understanding why this decision was made, as it makes boost::atomic<T> (and classes with a boost::atomic<T> member) very hard to store in containers, and I can't immediately see any safety issues that would be caused by allowing copy operations. What is the rationale for not allowing assignment or copy construction from another boost::atomic<T>?

6 10

Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up
by "Jürgen Hunold" 30 May '13

30 May '13

Hi Dave, > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 um 07:28 Uhr > Von: "Dave Abrahams" <dave(a)boostpro.com> > An: boost(a)lists.boost.org > Betreff: Re: [boost] Git Modularization Review no vote heads-up > > > on Wed May 22 2013, Jürgen Hunold <jhunold-AT-gmx.eu> wrote: > > > But this can easily be done after the conversion. > > > > I think we already lost too much time with failed rewrite attempts, so let us > > get a working repository first. Then Volodya can test git mv v2/* . and report > > results. Afterwards, we can always try rewriting in a separate clone. Done this myself yesterday. Works like a charm, git blame shows undisrupted history after git commit shows "rename" with 100% on each file moved. > Rewriting _published_ history is most strongly discouraged by the Git > people, for several good reasons. *If* there is to be any > rearrangement, it should happen before the switchover, so it doesn't > bork people who are doing work based on the history originally > published. Yes, the basic rule of git. > However, I am loath to do any rearrangement that doesn't (reasonably) > faithfully reflect how things were set up in the past. Otherwise, > someone will check out an old state of the super-module and find that > things have the wrong path relationships. Of course, path relationships > will not match SVN anyway (because we don't have a modular layout in > SVN), but people on this list made it quite clear that modularizing > history was important to them, so I presume they want the Git history to > reflect reality with maximal fidelity. Correct. > That said, if the consensus is that things should be rearranged in the > build repository, we can do that. We just need clear and explicit > instructions that cover what to do with *all* the paths that have been > used in Boost.Build (including branches and tags) throughout time. As > you can see from > https://github.com/ryppl/Boost2Git/blob/master/repositories.txt#L2261 > and following lines, just preserving the existing structure was > nontrivial. That one starts with repository build : common_branches { submodule of "boost" : "tools/build"; content { "tools/build/" : "build"; "tools/jam/" : "jam"; } right? So, this now creates "tools/build/build" with the contents of "tools/build" and "tools/build/jam" with the contents of "tools/jam" which is long gone. The former is wrong, as it does not preserve the current structure despite the thing you wrote above. I think that a one-to-one mapping like: repository build : common_branches { submodule of "boost" : "tools/build"; content { "tools/build/" ; } is the way to go now. If something goes wrong, please put "tools/jam/" somewhere else. Btw. would repository build : common_branches { submodule of "boost" : "tools/build"; content { "tools/build/v2" ; } be the right way to move v2 one directory up? Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! juergen.hunold(a)gmx.eu * voice: 0049 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : 0049 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * mobil: 0049 178 186 1566 ! Germany

10 36

Re: [boost] [gsoc] Getting started with a repository (Was: Re: Live read-only GIT mirrors of Boost trunk SVN)
by Niall Douglas 30 May '13

30 May '13

> > I think the GIT team should make a decision NOW about whether GSOC > > students should use GIT or not. > > > I think I'm against this, on the grounds that there is a lot to go > > wrong, and much critical students Google-time, especially with those > > who may be even ranker amateurs than me ;-) > > +1 > > > Unless there is a firm commitment from the GIT team to support > > students using GIT, then I think they should stick to boost-sandbox > > and do things "the old way". > > > Views from the GIT team? > > Paul > > ...Or their mentors! > > I'm mentoring a project and I'm a total, absolute git-beginner (used it, like, only > sporadically for one small repo). > > Is there any way to send git newbies like me and my student to the sandbox, at > least one more year? GSoC Boost.AFIO lives at https://github.com/ned14/boost.afio but will auto mirror itself into Boost Sandbox once Paul registers for Boost SVN commit privs. If there's interest on how I configured this, do let me know. Niall --- Opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of BlackBerry Inc.

3 3