- Boost - lists.boost.org

Release schedule related updates
by Beman Dawes 23 May '12

23 May '12

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleaseSchedule has been updated to reflect experience and lengthen the beta period. https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleasePractices/ManagerCheckList has been updated to reflect the importance of the calendar. The Google calendar itself has been updated for releases 1.50.0, 1.51.0, and 1.52.0. I'm looking into ways to queue postings of release milestones so they get sent automatically and don't get forgotten. Thanks, --Beman

1 0

[ot] choosing a build system
by Nathan Ridge 23 May '12

23 May '12

Hello, I am developing a new C++ library (unrelated to Boost) and I need to choose a build system for it. I had originally planned to use Boost.Build, because I figured that it would be particularly suitable for a C++ library, and because I've come to associate Boost with high quality and excellence. However, recently I've heard talk of Boost switching its own build system from Boost.Build to CMake (in fact, the currently active thread about modularization suggests that this change is imminent). My understanding is that Boost is the primary user of Boost.Build, and therefore I am concerned about what this switch means for the future of Boost.Build. Do you think choosing Boost.Build as the build system for a project is still a sound choice, or am I better off choosing something else like CMake? More generally, what build system would you recommend for a C++ library? My requirements for the build system are the following: - straightforward support for multiple variants of the build (32-bit vs. 64-bit, debug vs. release, static vs. shared, etc.), including coexistence of multiple variants on the same machine - general ease of use (for the library writer and library users) - suitability for a C++ project - cross-platform, FOSS Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks, Nate

26 59

spirit classic modularization
by Dave Abrahams 22 May '12

22 May '12

While I was in Aspen I split Spirit and Spirit Classic into separate Git repositories: https://github.com/boost-lib/spirit https://github.com/boost-lib/spirit_classic The manifest entries begin here, and as you can see, are quite long for these two libraries: https://github.com/ryppl/boost-modularize/blob/master/manifest.txt#L643 This is mostly due to the limited expressivity of the manifest language, but regardless... The question, for Spirit developers: which arrangement is better? Should both spirits go back into a single repository? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

3 4

[test] mingw 4.5, 4.6, compile failure with trunk
by Beman Dawes 22 May '12

22 May '12

..\..\../boost/test/utils/runtime/config.hpp: In function 'void boost::runtime::putenv_impl(boost::runtime::cstring, boost::runtime::cstring)': ..\..\../boost/test/utils/runtime/config.hpp:95:51: error: 'putenv' was not declared in this scope This is preventing me from testing other Boost libraries that use Boost.Test:-( --Beman

2 2

[releases] How long between beta and final release?
by Beman Dawes 22 May '12

22 May '12

Although there has been general agreement that there should be more time between beta and final releases, we haven't nailed down the exact duration. To get discussion started, I'll propose five weeks as the target time between beta and final release. Since there needs to be a week for final regression tests to cycle and release candidates to be tested, that would allow four weeks for beta fixes to be incorporated. Comments? --Beman

1 0

Using Boost with IBM Rhapsody and UML?
by David Hagood 22 May '12

22 May '12

Does anybody have experience pulling Boost into IBM's Rhapsody UML tool, such that Rhapsody will be able to use Boost in UML models and UML to C++ codegen?

2 1

[decimal] Proposed portable implementation ofstd::decimal
by Josh Quigley 22 May '12

22 May '12

Hi all. A first draft of this library is available at https://sourceforge.net/projects/stddecimal/ Runs on MSVC10 and gcc 4.6.3. Wraps the Intel implementation only, Until we resolve the licencing issue, top-level README contains detailed instructions about where to get 3rd party code and what to do with it. I'm keen on feedback on a particular point (although all feedback is of course welcome!): The current project can parse and execute the test cases maintained by Mike Cowlishaw from http://speleotrove.com/decimal/ (referred to as the Test Cases). To be completely clear, I also have normal, interface testing test cases, I am *not* talking about those below. - Question: How useful do people feel the Test Cases to be? I originally expected 99% of these tests to pass, but it turns out that most of them require: - The operands to be parsed and stored at the precision they appear in the Test Case file - The operation to be performed at precision of the operands - The high precision result to be rounded to the precision required by the Test Cases. - The test inputs to be parsed with correct rounding in underflow situations (not required by IEEE afaik) The above requirements are based on my experience with the tests - it is possible I'm making a blunder somewhere. Since the Test Cases are really testing the 3rd party library, an argument could be made they are not essential, or even desirable. I'm inclined to think they would be very, very nice to have, as they would give users a lot of confidence - I suspect user uptake would be poor without this confidence. So... what do people think? Regards, Josh. (PS gmail seems to be confused about who 'boost' is, so apologies for the cross-posts!)

2 2

Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
by Oliver Kowalke 21 May '12

21 May '12

The headers are moved into directory'include' - how does the build system handle includes (header from other boost libs)? At least I get error that header xyz is not found if I execute the tests using bjam. Oliver -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

10 44

Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
by Dave Abrahams 21 May '12

21 May '12

Hi All, As we head toward a modularized Boost, Daniel Pfeifer we on the Ryppl project would like confirmation that we've correctly (or at least sensibly, when there's no obvious "correct") identified the module boundaries in Boost's monolithic SVN repository. If library authors could take a few moments to examine the contents of your library's repo at https://github.com/boost-lib, and let us know, we'd be most grateful. Thanks! -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

16 28

Re: [boost] [Boost-commit] svn:boost r78350 - in sandbox/pool: boost/pool libs/pool/test
by Steven Watanabe 21 May '12

21 May '12

AMDG On 05/06/2012 06:29 AM, svart.riddare(a)gmail.com wrote: > Author: edupuis > Date: 2012-05-06 09:29:40 EDT (Sun, 06 May 2012) > New Revision: 78350 > URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/78350 > > Log: > Added new get_size() member function for pool, static_pool and object_pool. This fixes #6865. Please reopen this and any other tickets you've closed like this. Tickets are not fixed until they're at least fixed in the trunk and preferably in release. > Added: > sandbox/pool/libs/pool/test/test_bug_6865.cpp (contents, props changed) > Text files modified: > sandbox/pool/boost/pool/object_pool.hpp | 5 +++++ > sandbox/pool/boost/pool/pool.hpp | 10 ++++++++++ > sandbox/pool/boost/pool/static_pool.hpp | 5 +++++ > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > <snip> In Christ, Steven Watanabe

2 1