- Boost - lists.boost.org

Exception visibility and non-GCC compilers
by Mathias Gaunard 30 Apr '12

30 Apr '12

Exceptions types need to be exported so that shared libraries work correctly. Currently, the only code I see that does this is in Boost.Exception : #if defined(__GNUC__) # if (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 1) || (__GNUC__ > 4) # pragma GCC visibility push (default) # endif #endif ... some exception type being declared or defined #if defined(__GNUC__) # if (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 1) || (__GNUC__ > 4) # pragma GCC visibility pop # endif #endif But shouldn't we have macros to make this work with other compilers too? I'm not sure all unix-like compilers pretend to be GCC 4.1+.

2 3

[pool] Definition of a static_pool ?
by DUPUIS Etienne 30 Apr '12

30 Apr '12

Greetings, The Boost.Pool class describes a pool of buffer, pool whose size grows as needed. This is very convenient but there usage cases where the pool should not perform any dynamic memory allocation, i.e. the maximum number of simultaneously required buffers is known at initialization. I have hence defined a simple class 'static_pool' (see below), which (i) allocate all requested buffers at initialization; (ii) fails (returns null) if more buffers are being asked for at runtime. Does such a class has its place within the Boost Pool library ? Regards, Étienne #ifndef BOOST_STATIC_POOL_HPP #define BOOST_STATIC_POOL_HPP #include <boost/pool/pool.hpp> namespace boost { template<typename UserAllocator> class static_pool : protected pool<UserAllocator> { public : // Overridden functions explicit static_pool(const size_type nrequested_size) : pool<UserAllocator>(nrequested_size, nrequested_size) { free(malloc()); } void * malloc() { return store().empty() ? NULL : store().malloc(); } public : // Inherited functions void free(void * const chunk) { return pool<UserAllocator>::free(chunk); } size_type get_requested_size() const { return pool<UserAllocator>::get_requestedSize(); } bool is_from(void * const chunk) const { return pool<UserAllocator>::is_from(chunk); } }; } #endif Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute modification, édition, utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, merci de nous en avertir immédiatement. ATEME décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé, falsifié ou encore édité ou diffusé sans autorisation. This message and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorized modification, edition, use or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately. ATEME decline all responsibility for this message if it has been altered, deformed, falsified or even edited or disseminated without authorization. Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.

7 18

[filesystem] [system] Suddenly, dynamic linking by default
by Lars Viklund 30 Apr '12

30 Apr '12

Hello list. I have a habit of tracking trunk to find out if there's any strangeness or mistakes done on the platforms I target. A while ago I encountered some strange linking errors on some of my projects, which in the end turned out to be because for some reason, Boost.Filesystem and Boost.System now attempt to be dynamically linked by default, both symbol-decoration-wise and auto-link filename-wise. I happened to have some older shared libraries from an older trunk version lying around, so they were suddenly and unexpectedly picked up instead of my fresh static libraries. Even without my library hygiene deficiencies, the decision (which I have yet to see a rationale or announcement about) will cause a lot of problems. Why is it that System/Filesystem suddenly default to dynamic linking? Are there problems about linking statically? Why are there then static libraries built at all? Is this just some personal preference of the author that goes contrary to the general approach of Boost? Such choices have _massive_ impacts on consumers of the code, they should not be made lightly and if there is a really concrete need to do so, why is it not documented and thoroughly explained? Linking dynamically requires you to deploy the Boost DLLs to the end user, which prevents any plugin-like deployment, as they tend to require a single self-contained shared library with no dependencies, which implies linking to a static language runtime of choice. Dynamic linking of Boost means that you need to share a CRT between the project and Boost, which implies that the only CRT choice is the dynamic one, which prevents many deployment scenarios, as you have to deploy _that_ as well to the end user, either as a redistributable install or as a private deployment. This also has an impact on code size, as there is no dead-code elimination possible when the code resides in a DLL, you have to ship _all_ of the library even if you use a few convenience functions. For one of my projects (an extension to a popular music player), this would inflate its size many times for each and every download, as the software is deployed as a single ZIP archive through automatic update services. Additionally, the autolink macros to force symbol decoration and linking for a static link are undocumented in the Boost.Config table [1], which explicitly states that all libraries that can be statically linked will be statically linked. There is no mention of libraries that arbitrarily decide to go dynamic, just that some libraries are only available in dynamic form. For future reference for anyone finding this in archives, the undocumented, and in this case required, macros to force a static link and symbol decoration are: BOOST_<WHATEVER>_STATIC_LINK or BOOST_ALL_STATIC_LINK [1] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/config/doc/html/index.html#boost_… -- Lars Viklund | zao(a)acc.umu.se

5 6

[iostream] tests broken due to dependency on removed filesystem internals
by Jürgen Hunold 30 Apr '12

30 Apr '12

Hi, almost all Boost.Iostreams test fail with: bin.v2/libs/iostreams/test/array_test.test/gcc-4.6/debug/array_test.o In file included from ../array_test.cpp:14:0: ../detail/temp_file.hpp:16:46: fatal error: boost/filesystem/v3/operations.hpp: No such file or directory compilation terminated. The v3/ was removed recently as v2 was finally dropped. Patch to fix this attached. This gets a lot of the tests running. Okay to commit? There are some remaining failures. Yours, Jürgen -- * Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! * voice: ++49 4257 300 ! Fährstraße 1 * fax : ++49 4257 300 ! 31609 Balge/Sebbenhausen * jhunold(a)gmx.eu !

3 4

[multiprecision] Looking for a review manager
by John Maddock 29 Apr '12

29 Apr '12

Just a quick line to remind/hassle you all that I'm still looking for a review manager for the multiprecision library: http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/big_number/libs/multiprecision/doc/h… All volunteers/victims gratefully accepted ;-) Many thanks in advance, John.

1 0

Re: [boost] Slow Bugs Tracker
by Olaf van der Spek 29 Apr '12

29 Apr '12

Hi, A few months ago there seemed to be plans to improve Trac. What's the status of those plans? Trac is still slow as hell. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/12/188639.php http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/12/188937.php -- Olaf

7 44

[utility] convention inconsistencies
by lcaminiti 29 Apr '12

29 Apr '12

Hello all, I'm adding IdentityType to Boost.Utility and I have a couple of question about conventions: 1) Is there a reason why utility.hpp does not include all headers in boost/utility/? 2) Is there a reason why in the Documentation the utility sub-libraries are not named Boost.Utility/EnableIf bust just Boost.EnableIf? http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/ In boost/utility/ directory: addressof.hpp base_from_member.hpp binary.hpp compare_pointees.hpp declval.hpp enable_if.hpp identity_type.hpp in_place_factory.hpp result_of.hpp swap.hpp typed_in_place_factory.hpp value_init.hpp But boost/utility.hpp includes only some of those: #ifndef BOOST_UTILITY_HPP #define BOOST_UTILITY_HPP #include <boost/utility/addressof.hpp> #include <boost/utility/base_from_member.hpp> #include <boost/utility/binary.hpp> #include <boost/utility/enable_if.hpp> #include <boost/checked_delete.hpp> #include <boost/next_prior.hpp> #include <boost/noncopyable.hpp> #endif // BOOST_UTILITY_HPP Thanks. --Lorenzo -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/boost-utility-convention-inconsistencies… Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2 1

[function] The cost of boost::function
by Michael Kochetkov 28 Apr '12

28 Apr '12

Hello, as far as I subscribed to boost mail list for a reason I have decided to share an interesting (at least for me) observation of boost::function facility I have encountered several years ago. The observation is about the cost of the solution and you probably may be interested if you use boost in your production. Let us consider the following code: #include <boost/bind.hpp> #include <boost/function.hpp> inline int g(int i) { return ++i; } int main() { // AAAAA boost::function< int (int) > f1 = boost::bind(&g, _1 ); f1(1); // BBBB boost::_bi::bind_t<int,int (*)(int),boost::_bi::list1<boost::arg<1> > > f2 = boost::bind(&g, _1 ); f2(1); // CCCC auto f3 = boost::bind(&g, _1 ); f3(1); } I have compiled it with Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 16.00.40219.01 for 80x86 the following way (maximal optimization): cl -EHsc -Ox -GL -Ob2 -Oi -Fa -IE:\Work\3dparty\boost_1_48_0 m054.cpp The resulting code for AAAA is: ; Line 10 mov eax, OFFSET ?g@@YAHH@Z ; g mov DWORD PTR $T109940[esp+60], eax mov eax, DWORD PTR $T109845[esp+64] lea ecx, DWORD PTR $T109940[esp+60] push ecx mov DWORD PTR $T109940[esp+68], eax call ?has_empty_target@function@detail@boost@@YA_NZZ ; boost::detail::function::has_empty_target add esp, 4 test al, al jne SHORT $LN20@main mov edx, DWORD PTR $T109940[esp+60] mov eax, DWORD PTR $T109940[esp+64] mov ecx, OFFSET ?stored_vtable@?1???$assign_to@V?$bind_t@HP6AHH@ZV?$list1@U?$arg@$00@boost@@ @_bi@boost@@@_bi@boost@@@?$function1@HH@boost@@AAEXV?$bind_t@HP6AHH@ZV?$list 1@U?$arg@$00@boost@@@_bi@boost@@@_bi@2@@Z@4U?$basic_vtable1@HH@function@deta il@2@B ; `boost::function1<int,int>::assign_to<boost::_bi::bind_t<int,int (__cdecl*)(int),boost::_bi::list1<boost::arg<1> > > >'::`2'::stored_vtable or ecx, 1 mov DWORD PTR _f1$[esp+68], edx mov DWORD PTR _f1$[esp+72], eax mov DWORD PTR _f1$[esp+60], ecx jmp SHORT $LN18@main $LN20@main: mov DWORD PTR _f1$[esp+60], 0 $LN18@main: ; Line 11 lea ecx, DWORD PTR _f1$[esp+60] mov DWORD PTR __$EHRec$[esp+68], 0 call ??R?$function1@HH@boost@@QBEHH@Z ; boost::function1<int,int>::operator() The resulting code for BBBB is: ; Line 15 push 1 call ?g@@YAHH@Z ; g add esp, 4 The resulting code for CCCC is: ; Line 19 push 1 call ?g@@YAHH@Z ; g add esp, 4 I have learned that personally I shall never use boost::function. You probably may want to investigate such a code bloat. Though it is probably the known and expected behavior. And I do agree that CCCC is not quite relevant here. Just for information. -- Michael Kochetkov P.S. The traditional full story for AAAA, that includes intermediate calls. Though it is not really full -- I have given up for three more calls inside the boost::function1<int,int>::operator() function. ; // AAAAA ; boost::function< int (int) > f1 = boost::bind(&g, _1 ); ; f1(1); 002661B9 mov eax,261170h 002661BE mov dword ptr [esp+4],eax 002661C2 mov eax,dword ptr [esp+8] 002661C6 lea ecx,[esp+4] 002661CA push ecx 002661CB mov dword ptr [esp+0Ch],eax 002661CF call 00261160 002661D4 add esp,4 002661D7 test al,al 002661D9 jne 002661F9 002661DB mov edx,dword ptr [esp+4] 002661DF mov eax,dword ptr [esp+8] 002661E3 mov ecx,26A028h 002661E8 or ecx,1 002661EB mov dword ptr [esp+14h],edx 002661EF mov dword ptr [esp+18h],eax 002661F3 mov dword ptr [esp+0Ch],ecx 002661F7 jmp 00266201 002661F9 mov dword ptr [esp+0Ch],0 00266201 lea ecx,[esp+0Ch] 00266205 mov dword ptr [esp+38h],0 0026620D call 002611D0 ; ?has_empty_target@function@detail@boost@@YA_NZZ ; boost::detail::function::has_empty_target 00DD1160 xor al,al 00DD1162 ret ; ??R?$function1@HH@boost@@QBEHH@Z ; boost::function1<int,int>::operator() 00DD11D0 push 0FFFFFFFFh 00DD11D2 push 0DD7810h 00DD11D7 mov eax,dword ptr fs:[00000000h] 00DD11DD push eax 00DD11DE sub esp,58h 00DD11E1 push esi 00DD11E2 mov eax,dword ptr ds:[00DDB038h] 00DD11E7 xor eax,esp 00DD11E9 push eax 00DD11EA lea eax,[esp+60h] 00DD11EE mov dword ptr fs:[00000000h],eax 00DD11F4 mov eax,dword ptr [ecx] 00DD11F6 test eax,eax 00DD11F8 jne 00DD1248 00DD11FA lea eax,[esp+0Ch] 00DD11FE push eax 00DD11FF lea ecx,[esp+14h] 00DD1203 mov dword ptr [esp+10h],0DDA008h 00DD120B call 00DD187F 00DD1210 mov dword ptr [esp+10h],0DDA058h 00DD1218 lea eax,[esp+10h] 00DD121C lea esi,[esp+1Ch] 00DD1220 mov dword ptr [esp+68h],0 00DD1228 call 00DD1600 00DD122D lea esi,[esp+3Ch] 00DD1231 mov byte ptr [esp+68h],1 00DD1236 call 00DD1640 00DD123B push 0DDA7A8h 00DD1240 mov ecx,esi 00DD1242 push ecx 00DD1243 call 00DD23CA 00DD1248 and eax,0FFFFFFFEh 00DD124B mov edx,dword ptr [eax+4] 00DD124E add ecx,8 00DD1251 push 1 00DD1253 push ecx 00DD1254 call edx 00DD1256 add esp,8 00DD1259 mov ecx,dword ptr [esp+60h] 00DD125D mov dword ptr fs:[0],ecx 00DD1264 pop ecx 00DD1265 pop esi 00DD1266 add esp,64h 00DD1269 ret

6 8

[1.50] Is there a schedule?
by John Maddock 27 Apr '12

27 Apr '12

OK, so it's too soon at present anyway, but should there be some sort of schedule on the calendar so we all know where we are? Cheers, John.

2 1

Boost.Variant known_get
by David Sankel 27 Apr '12

27 Apr '12

I noticed the detail::known_get function in boost variant. Is there any reason this function, which would be useful in high performance scenarios, is not exposed as part of the rest of the interface? David -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com 585 617 4748 (Office)

1 0