- Boost - lists.boost.org

Re: [boost] [Boost-testing] [odeint] Regression tests fail for unknown reason
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

Le 13/12/12 21:40, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit : > Le 13/12/12 21:28, Daniel James a écrit : >> On 13 December 2012 20:21, Vicente J. Botet Escriba >> <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: >>> Maybe, but I don't think so. All the Boost.Thread test are failling, and >>> most of them don't use Boost.Test. >>> The problem is that here is no information. What is happening with the >>> regression test results? >> I tried it on my machine: >> >> darwin.compile.c++ >> ../../../bin.v2/libs/thread/build/darwin-4.7x/debug/link-static/threading-multi/pthread/thread.o >> ../../../libs/thread/src/pthread/thread.cpp: In member function 'bool >> boost::thread::joinable() const': >> ../../../libs/thread/src/pthread/thread.cpp:398:34: error: cannot >> convert 'boost::detail::thread_data_ptr {aka >> boost::shared_ptr<boost::detail::thread_data_base>}' to 'bool' in >> return >> ../../../libs/thread/src/pthread/thread.cpp:399:5: warning: control >> reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type] >> >> So it's shared_ptr's explicit bool? >> > Yes. I need to merge from trunk. I believed that I did it already :( > 06:01 Changeset /[81788]/ by viboes > <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81788> > > Thread: fix shared_ptr implicit conversion to bool introduced in > [81780] <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81780> > > I will take care also of the merge of Boost.Test > > 06:43 Changeset /[81791]/ by viboes > <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81791> > Test: fix shared_ptr implicit conversion to bool introduced in > [81780] <https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81780> > why we are not able to see the comile errors on the regression test results? Vicente

2 2

Boost.Process: Formal review request
by Boris Schaeling 14 Dec '12

14 Dec '12

I'd like to ask for a formal review of the library which is known as Boost.Process 0.5: - Docs: http://www.highscore.de/boost/process0.5/ - Code: http://www.highscore.de/boost/process0.5/process.zip Since 2006 a lot of people spent a tremendous amount of work on a process management library for Boost. Since then Boost.Process went through two GSoC projects, had a formal review in 2011 where it got rejected, was discussed at BoostCon, went through a complete overhaul afterwards, spun off boost::asio::windows::object_handle and got a sponsorship. In fact the library is around for so long and has attracted so much interest that it could be called a de facto Boost library. People call it Boost.Process, and there are some who use the library in their projects. The main reason why Boost.Process is under construction for six years: Differences between the supported platforms Windows and POSIX. There are other libraries like Boost.Asio or Boost.Interprocess which have to deal with platform differences, too. But in their case no core functionality is affected. Classes like boost::asio::posix::stream_descriptor or boost::interprocess::windows_shared_memory are nice to have, and no one is worried that they only work on one platform. Boost.Process has to deal with platform differences in core functions. For example, resource leaking is unacceptable (zombie processes on POSIX and open HANDLEs on Windows when child processes exit). Given that platforms are very different two extreme solutions are possible: Abstract away differences at all costs. Or tell the library user to call platform-specific system functions. As none is satisfactory, a balance between these extremes has to be found. But where this balance should be exactly can be discussed with no end. Someone has to make a decision at some point, and that will be another important role for the review manager. :) Looking back at what has been accomplished since the first review, I think Boost.Process 0.5 is a huge step forward: * The library is now fully customizable. While previous versions had a function called launch() which was immutable, the current version is based on things called executors and initializers. An executor is basically a struct with member variables which will be passed as arguments to a system function to spawn a child. Initializers set those member variables. Library users pick initializers provided by Boost.Process or define their own to setup executors. * Boost.Process 0.5 is cleaner and more focused as it makes better use of other Boost libraries. For example, previous versions had their own stream classes. They were removed in the current version - Boost.Iostreams is used instead. Now Boost.Process doesn't reinvent concepts or reimplement functions anymore which belong in other libraries. All of that makes me believe it's time for a new review. Boris

5 9

[Interprocess] Experimental Win32 Mutexes
by Brink, Robert (GE Aviation, US) 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

I'm running Boost 1.52 on Windows 7, Visual Studio 2010. I noticed in sync\interprocess_mutex.hpp there is a windows mutex implementation that is hidden behind the BOOST_INTERPROCESS_FORCE_GENERIC_EMULATION macro. The comment indicates that it is "Experimental". Could someone shed some light on what is Experimental about it and what the general plans for this feature are? I was having a problem with many processes all spin-locking when allocating shared memory that I traced down to the old mutex implementation for shared memory. I enabled the experimental feature in my local build ( by commenting out the above macro in the detail\workaround.hpp file) and it seems to fix my problems. My performance is much improved. But what are my risks for using this implementation? I'm a little nervous to depend on something marked as "Experimental". Thanks Rob Brink

3 5

[Interprocess] Managed mapped file questions
by Jorge Lodos Vigil 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Hi First of all, thank you for boost interprocess :-) I have a couple of questions: 1. When you grow a managed mapped file, the current implementation fills all the new space with zeroes. This is less efficient than just resizing the file. The comments in the code implies there is a reason, so what is it? 2. When the size to map is too small, take 1 or 2 bytes for instance, the library fails in a non elegant way. This is a corner case, but I could not find this documented. Is this a bug? I'm asking this before sending any sample code or creating tickets, but of course I could do that as well if there is the need. Thanks again. Cheers Jorge

2 4

[Container][Move] #if defined(BOOST_MOVE_USE_STANDARD_LIBRARY_MOVE): boost::move_backward is undefined
by Hartmut Kaiser 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

Hey, If BOOST_MOVE_USE_STANDARD_LIBRARY_MOVE is defined, then compiling Boost.Container fails because its missing boost::move_backward. Patch is attached. Ok to commit? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 3

Boost.Process 0.5: And another minor update
by Boris Schaeling 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

I've uploaded a new version of Boost.Process 0.5 to <http://www.highscore.de/boost/process0.5/>: - First command line argument passed to set_args is used as a path to the executable to start - No escaping of command line arguments anymore with set_args (see <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/236137>) - Updated documentation Boris

4 6

Use of deprecated macros in Boost
by Marshall Clow 13 Dec '12

13 Dec '12

In Boost 1.50, we (Boost) marked a bunch of macros as "deprecated" In Boost 1.51, we deprecated a bunch more - replaced them with new, shiny macros. I've been working with many of you (library maintainers) to remove all the uses of deprecated macros in Boost, and we've been almost completely successful .. on the trunk. We're a week away from the freezing of the release branch for the 1.53 release, and I'd like to make sure that all those macro changes get merged over to the release branch. http://www.boost.org/development/ I will be happy to help - just let me know. Thanks in advance! -- Marshall

3 11

Heads up - string_ref landing
by Marshall Clow 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

I'm about to check in some new functionality into the string_algo library; an implementation of string_ref. A string_ref is a non-owning reference to a string. It is implemented as a {pointer, length} pair, and is exceedingly useful when parsing, and manipulating strings in "read-only" ways. The header will be in boost/algorithm/string_ref.hpp, but I welcome discussion about where it should live. Ideally, I think it should be just "boost/string_ref.hpp". Basic sanity tests will be checked in with the header file - I have tested on clang, clang11, and gcc. One reason for checking this in now is to get the tests run on lots of different systems. Docs will be coming soon, but http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3442.html is the proposal for "a future version of C++" ;-) Please let me know what you think! -- 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

18 45

[smart_ptr][thread][test] breaking change on shared_ptr operator bool.
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

Hi, https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81780 " Use explicit operator bool when available; ..." introduces a breaking change on shared_ptr in Boost.Thread and Boost.Test at least. I would preferred if this breaking change was announced and why not added conditionally so that the user could move smoothly to the new semantic. Anyway, I wanted to make this evident so that the Boost maintainer using this facility fixes their code as soon as possible. Best, Vicente

7 19

[atomic] Header rearrangement
by Andrey Semashev 12 Dec '12

12 Dec '12

Hi, Before merging Boost.Atomic to release I would like to propose to rearrange library headers a bit: 1. The current boost/atomic/config.hpp and platform.hpp seem to be not intended for public use as they don't provide any public components. I propose to move them to boost/atomic/detail. 2. The boost/atomic.hpp header defines the atomic<> template. I propose to move its contents to boost/atomic/atomic.hpp. The boost/atomic.hpp will be left as the "include all" header and will only include boost/atomic/atomic.hpp for now. The motivation for the proposal is to cleanup the public library interface (header layout) and simplify extension later. For instance, function-style interface can be added as a new header in boost/atomic, it would fit naturally in the proposed layout. Also, with the upcoming transition to git it seems that all library headers should reside in the library's own subdirectory and not directly in boost/. AFAICT, the change will not affect any other libraries since only boost/atomic.hpp is included currently. If noone objects (Tim, I would very much like to hear from you on this), I can do the necessary changes.

3 2