- Boost - lists.boost.org

[test] Fix WinCE workaround
by Jan Hudec 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

Hello Folks, boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp has workaround for older MSVC++ and assumes WinCE version need it too. However the WinCE compiler caught up in next version. Here is a proposed patch: --- a/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp +++ b/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ using std::va_list; typedef unsigned uintptr_t; # endif -# if BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1300 ) || defined(UNDER_CE) +# if BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1300 ) || (defined(UNDER_CE) && BOOST_WORKAROUND(_MSC_VER, < 1500 )) typedef void* uintptr_t; # endif -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb(a)ucw.cz>

2 1

[test] Interest in gtest-like output?
by Jared Grubb 02 Sep '12

02 Sep '12

I really like the Boost.Test framework, however, I cant help but have a bit of envy over how great the output from googletest looks. I've been playing around with writing a formatter/outputter that emulates the output style of googletest, and I am willing to spend some time to pretty it up and generate a patch if there's interest. Does anyone think this would be a worthy submission to boost? For an example of what the output looks like, this site has some great examples: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/aix/library/au-googletestingframework.html (just to clarify: I'm not suggesting changing any BOOST_TEST syntax, just adding a new optional way to format the test progress and results to stdout) Jared

3 2

Re: [boost] [lockfree] Faulty (?) static assert
by Hartmut Kaiser 01 Sep '12

01 Sep '12

> The lockfree::queue constructors raise a static assert if no capacity is > specified. This contradicts the member initialization code close to the > assert, for instance: > > queue(void): > head_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > tail_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > pool(node_allocator(), has_capacity ? capacity : 0) > { > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity); > initialize(); > } > > which implies that 'has_capacity' is allowed to be false. From what I can > see 'has_capacity' could be false, indeed, in particular if the queue is > not bounded in size. > > Would changing this to > > queue(void): > head_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > tail_(tagged_node_handle(0, 0)), > pool(node_allocator(), has_capacity ? capacity : 0) > { > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity || capacity); > initialize(); > } > > reflect the actual intention? Sorry, I meant: > BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(has_capacity || !capacity); Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > > Regards Hartmut > --------------- > http://boost-spirit.com > http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu > >

1 0

[atomic] Windows autolinking and longlong patches
by Hartmut Kaiser 01 Sep '12

01 Sep '12

Hey, Please find attached two patches for Boost.Atomic (trunk, rev. 80334) adding auto-linking for MSVC, fixing symbol visibility, and fixing a long long problem. Ok to commit? Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 2

[type_eraseure]Why not make default concept_interface a metafunction returning Base?
by Larry Evans 31 Aug '12

31 Aug '12

Since the unspecialized concept_iterface definition: template<class Concept, class Base, class ID, class Enable = void> struct concept_interface : Base {}; does nothing, and it's used to compose the any base class heirarchy in: template<class Derived, class Concept, class T> struct compute_bases { typedef typename ::boost::mpl::fold< typename ::boost::type_erasure::detail::collect_concepts< Concept >::type, ::boost::type_erasure::any_base<Derived>, ::boost::type_erasure::concept_interface< ::boost::mpl::_2, ::boost::mpl::_1, T > >::type type; }; why not eliminate the empty concept_interfaces by redefining the unspecialized concept_interface to: template<class Concept, class Base, class ID, class Enable = void> struct concept_interface : Base { //The following enables mpl::fold, when using //this as the binary operator, to skip this //empty interface. typedef Base type; }; I believe that would work since mpl::fold uses the nested type if it's available, IIUC. Although it would not change the behaviour of any code, it would make the intent of the code clearer. Also, while trying to understand what the code is doing by using a type name demangler, I found all those empty concept_interfaces are just noise. -regards, Larry

1 0

[Review:Contract] Contract Broken Handlers , BOOST_NO_EXCEPT and noexcept
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 31 Aug '12

31 Aug '12

Hi, I would like to know if Boost.Contract could work when BOOST_NO_EXCEPT is defined. I suspect that it can not at present, as the user needs to re-throw the exception to know the broken nature. Maybe the handler could have the an exception/error object as parameter instead. In order to be able to use contracts in C++11 functions declared noexcept I would need that the contract handler are declared noexcept also, in particular when the contract is broken from a destructor, which is often declared noexcept in C++11. Maybe the library can provide some specific set handlers that expect a noexcept handler for the destructor context. BTW, could the ALL CAPITAL |FROM_CONSTRUCTOR, ... enumeration literal|s be renamed to lower case from_constructor, ...? Best, Vicente

2 3

Question about release branches
by Pedro Larroy 30 Aug '12

30 Aug '12

Hi I'm not able to find some fixes such as (78513) in tags/release/Boost_1_51_0/ nor tags/release/Boost_1_50_0/ Why some fixes that are in trunk didn't made it to the release branches? Thanks. Pedro.

2 1

[range] Missing include in boost/range/algorithm/for_each.hpp
by Sergiu Dotenco 30 Aug '12

30 Aug '12

There is an issue with boost/range/algorithm/for_each.hpp which is missing an include. The problem seems to have been fixed in trunk two months ago (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79180) but the changeset hasn't been applied to the release branch yet. Could this be done for the 1.52 release?

2 1

[fusion] undocumented sequence requirement: convert
by Eric Niebler 30 Aug '12

30 Aug '12

Say I have a valid fusion sequence. I want to use an mpl algorithm on it. I include boost/fusion/mpl.hpp and put a nested tag type in my sequence that is an alias for fusion::fusion_sequence_tag. So far, so good. Then I try to call mpl::pop_back on this sequence, and I find that, despite fulfilling all the documented requirements for Fusion ForwardSequence, the code fails to compile. That's because of this in boost/fusion/mpl/pop_back.hpp: template <> struct pop_back_impl<fusion::fusion_sequence_tag> { template <typename Sequence> struct apply { typedef typename fusion::result_of::pop_back<Sequence>::type result; typedef typename fusion::result_of::convert< typename fusion::detail::tag_of<Sequence>::type, result>::type type; }; }; My code doesn't compile because I haven't implemented the fusion::convert customization point. Where is that documented and what does it do? -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

4 12

[type_erasure]bug in computed_bases?
by Larry Evans 29 Aug '12

29 Aug '12

Based on the output of the test code(compute_bases.cpp) in the 1st attachment, the compute_bases metafunction defined in any.hpp is producing something like: concept_interface < concepts , concept_interface < mpl::at_c<concepts,1>::type , concept_interface < mpl::at_c<concepts,2>::type , ID , Enable > , ID , Enable > , ID , Enable > where concepts is the Concept argument to any. When the test code is run with: //#define OVERLOAD_SIMPLE the output is what should be expected with a_any.simple(); calling the simple<.>::apply static method. The output for this case is shown in the compute_bases.not_overload_simple.out. OTOH, when the test code is run with: #define OVERLOAD_SIMPLE the code in the concept_interface<typename requirements<C>::type,...>::simple is run. The output for this case is shown in the compute_bases.yes_overload_simple.out. This output shows that the concept_interface<C,...> CTOR is called where C == mpl::vector<...>. Is this the intended behaviour? If so, where is this spelled out in the documentation? The documentation here: http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure… certainly doesn't suggest anything of that sort, and the doc here: http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure… says: 1. typename Concept The concept that we're specializing concept_interface for. which uses the singular Concept instead of the plural Concepts, suggesting the Concept is not an mpl::vector<> of any sort. -regards, Larry

2 4