August 2008 - Boost-users - lists.preview.boost.org

[filesystem] compiling code breaks on 1.36
by Scott Finley 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

I am on ubuntu 8.04. When upgrading from 1.34.1 to 1.36 the following code breaks. bfs_test.cpp: #include <iostream> #include <boost/filesystem.hpp> using std::cout; using std::endl; namespace bfs = boost::filesystem; int main() { bfs::recursive_directory_iterator end_itr; for( bfs::recursive_directory_iterator itr( "." ); itr != end_itr; ++itr ) { cout << bfs::extension( itr->leaf() ) << endl; } return 0; } I compile for 1.34.1 like this: gcc -o bfs bfs_test.cpp -lstdc++ -lboost_filesystem-gcc41-mt-1_34_1 running the result prints all file extensions recursively as expected. After switching to 1.36 compiling like this: gcc -o bfs bfs_test.cpp -lstdc++ -lboost_filesystem-gcc42-mt-1_36 gives the following error: bfs_test.cpp: In function 'int main()': bfs_test.cpp:13: error: 'class boost::filesystem::basic_directory_entry<boost::filesystem::basic_path<s td::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::filesystem::path_traits> >' has no member named 'leaf' My mistake, or did something change/break? Scott Finley

3 2

building and calling "dynamic c++" from a host program
by Isaac Lascasas 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Hello I have the following question: If you want to make a program that will let the user write "scripts" directly in c++, how will you do it? I am strugling my mind these days looking for a solution to this problem and I want to know if boost already address this situation. My intuition tells me that the process will probably consist on invoking bjam to build a dynamic lib with the "script" and then call the built code in the host binary. But how can this be done keeping it portable and clean? Obviously it won't work if you don't have a build environment configured but anyway it may be a very interesting feature. Regards, Isaac Lascasas.

5 6

shared_ptr race condition
by Eduardo Panisset 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

Hi, I have studied the sp_counted_base implementation and I can't see how it is trade safe. For instance: bool add_ref_lock() // true on success { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_ ); bool r = use_count_ == 0? false: ( ++use_count_, true ); pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_ ); return r; } void release() // nothrow { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_ ); long new_use_count = --use_count_; pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_ ); if( new_use_count == 0 ) { dispose(); weak_release(); } } I suppose to exist a race condition because I can't execute the comparation "if( new_use_count) == 0" outside of critical region delimited by mutex. So if: 1. Reference count = 1 2. Thread A executes release and is interrupted after execute the comparation if( new_use_count) == 0 (the comparation returns true) 3. Thread B executes add_ref_lock, then Ref count = 1 4. Thread A executes "dispose()" and releases the pointer ! What Do you think about ? Eduardo Panisset.

5 15

Building boost with codegear rad studio 2007
by Sean Farrow 16 Aug '08

16 Aug '08

Hi: Has any one built boost 1.36 with codegear rad studio 2007. I there a codegear.jab file. Is not what would I do to create one? Cheers Sean. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3357 (20080814) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

5 12

Re: [Boost-users] user-config.jam settings for building boost::MPI on windows Intel? (and potential bug in 1.36)
by Jesse Perla 16 Aug '08

16 Aug '08

* Here was my user-config.jam to install with MPICH2, windows Intel:using intel-win ; using mpi : : <find-shared-library>cxx <find-shared-library>mpi <library-path>C:/apps/MPICH2/lib ; * Considering that MPICH2 is a common library, perhaps it is worth the automatic mpi search on windows to look for it instead of just windows compute cluster. Sadly, I don't know enough about jam to write it myself. Now for a potential build issue: * After running: *bjam release debug --with-mpi *I then copied the libs/dll's into a lib folder in my Lib path for the compiler. * The build created a file called: libboost_mpi-iw-mt-gd-1_36.lib * And it created a file called: boost_serialization-iw-mt-gd-1_36.lib * However, when I tried to build using Intel C++ (and I didn't add the libs directly into the link inputs, the boost::mpi figured it out itself), it found the MPI library file, but tried to automatically look for a library called: libboost_serialization-iw-mt-gd-1_36.lib instead of the one created. * I renamed the serialization library to have "lib" in front, and everything compiled/ran fine. * * On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Perla <jesseperla(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am trying to build the boost::mpi (1.36) on: > 1) Windows vista > 2) Visual Studio 2008 > 3) Intel C++ 10.1 (though could switch to the built in Microsoft compiler > here if it would help) > 4) With the open source MPICH2 libraries installed. > > I can link, compile, and test properly according to the beginning of the > MPI > intstructions ( > http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/mpi/getting_started.html) > > Now, I added "using intel ; " and "using mpi ; " to my user-config.jam, but > > I guess it can't autodetect since it spits out: > > C:\apps\boost\boost_1_36_0>bjam --with-mpi > > The system cannot find the path specified. > > The system cannot find the path specified. > > The system cannot find the path specified. > > MPI auto-detection failed: unknown wrapper compiler mpic++ > > > > > > Does anyone know the set of config settings that would work for the setup I > described? When I tried to get debugging info out of the build, it said something > about trying to detect windows cluster server, which I am not using > (instead, MPICH2 as above). > > I guess part of the question is whether Intel C++ needs a "wrapper > compiler" as discussed later in the getting started. Since I was able to > compile and run the (non boost) MPI code, it doesn't seem so to me. > (or are there binaries for the MPI libraries? I had trouble finding them...) > > > Thanks, > Jesse >

1 0

Compiling from source - boost on Ubuntu AMD64
by Simon Pickles 16 Aug '08

16 Aug '08

Hi, Are there any requirements for building boost from source on Ubuntu AMD64? Do I need to pass any -m64 or -fPIC flags? Many thanks Simon

1 0

boost 1.34.1 build failed with segfaulting bjam using gcc4.2.3
by François Mauger 16 Aug '08

16 Aug '08

Hi boosters I just tried to build boost 1.34.1 from source on my laptop running Linux Ubuntu 8.04 and gcc version 4.2.3. Unfortunately it failed at the very beginning: $ ./configure --prefix=/scratch/sw/boost/install-1_34_1-gcc42 \ --with-libraries=date_time,filesystem,\ iostreams,program_options,python,serialization,thread #!!! ---> here the bjam binary is built Building Boost.Jam with toolset gcc... tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam Detecting Python version... 2.5 Detecting Python root... /usr Unicode/ICU support for Boost.Regex?... /usr Backing up existing Boost.Build configuration in user-config.jam.1 Generating Boost.Build configuration in user-config.jam... Generating Makefile... $ make ./tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam -sICU_PATH=/usr --user-config=user-config.jam --with-date_time --with-filesystem --with-iostreams --with-program_options --with-python --with-serialization --with-thread Segmentation fault <=== BLAM! strace output that prints: >>>>>>> $ strace tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam execve("tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam", ["tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam"], [/* 236 vars */]) = 0 brk(0) = 0x8071000 access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) mmap2(NULL, 8192, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7fb8000 mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7fb7000 mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7fb6000 access("/etc/ld.so.preload", R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) ... open("/etc/ld.so.cache", O_RDONLY) = 3 fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=66160, ...}) = 0 mmap2(NULL, 66160, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0xb7fa5000 close(3) = 0 access("/etc/ld.so.nohwcap", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory) open("/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6", O_RDONLY) = 3 read(3, "\177ELF\1\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0\3\0\1\0\0\0\260e\1"..., 512) = 512 fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=1364388, ...}) = 0 mmap2(NULL, 1369712, PROT_READ|PROT_EXEC, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0) = 0xb7e56000 mmap2(0xb7f9f000, 12288, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x149) = 0xb7f9f000 mmap2(0xb7fa2000, 9840, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7fa2000 close(3) = 0 mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7e55000 set_thread_area({entry_number:-1 -> 6, base_addr:0xb7e556b0, limit:1048575, seg_32bit:1, contents:0, read_exec_only:0, limit_in_pages:1, seg_not_present:0, useable:1}) = 0 mprotect(0xb7f9f000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0 munmap(0xb7fa5000, 66160) = 0 time(NULL) = 1218843031 brk(0) = 0x8071000 brk(0x8092000) = 0x8092000 open("/etc/localtime", O_RDONLY) = 3 fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=2945, ...}) = 0 fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=2945, ...}) = 0 mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7fb5000 read(3, "TZif2\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\f\0\0\0\f\0\0"..., 4096) = 2945 _llseek(3, -28, [2917], SEEK_CUR) = 0 read(3, "\nCET-1CEST,M3.5.0,M10.5.0/3\n", 4096) = 28 close(3) = 0 munmap(0xb7fb5000, 4096) = 0 uname({sys="Linux", node="mauger-laptop", ...}) = 0 brk(0x80b3000) = 0x80b3000 brk(0x80d4000) = 0x80d4000 brk(0x80f5000) = 0x80f5000 --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) --- +++ killed by SIGSEGV +++ Process 6883 detached <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I'm not familiar with the 'strace' utility so I cannot guess whatever useful from this output. So my pb comes from the brand new bjam executable (tools/jam/src/bin.linuxx86/bjam) that segfaults systematically for some mystery reason. Using bjam from the 'bjam' Debian package is ok so I can of course use the '--with-bjam=/usr/bin/bjam' switch to build the whole boost stuff. But I'm not satisfied with this solution for the standard boost build procedure worked perfectly as expected for boost 1.34.1 under my previous Ubuntu 7.04/gcc 4.1 and also for the new boost 1.36.0/gcc 4.2.3. Maybe someone could give me some hints to understand this problem? thanks a lot regards frc -- Francois Mauger Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire de Caen et Universite de Caen

2 1

namespace and directory name choice
by Hicham Mouline 16 Aug '08

16 Aug '08

hello, technically, this is not a boost question. I am writing a library to be used by third-party developers. Internally, i use boost::mpl sequences. Joaquin wrote mpl sequences cross-product metafunctions that i use, i called them sequence2_cross_product and sequence3_cross_product for the x-product of 2 and 3 sequences. I put the metafunction in a separate header file. I don't intend to expose it to my clients. Is there an agreed convention/style as to where such a header file should lie? My namespace hierarchy reflects my directory structure, so this is like asking in which namespace should i put this metafunction. I would have like to see such metafunctions already in boost::mpl., so should/can i highjack boost::mpl namespace in my header? or put it at toplevel right below my namespace ? rds,

3 2

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Boost 1.36.0 release notice
by David Abrahams 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

on Fri Aug 15 2008, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote: > David Abrahams wrote: >> on Fri Aug 15 2008, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> Why can't the packaging process be automatized, making it fully >>> reproducible ? Trying to increase the amount of tests run on the final >>> package attacs the problem from the wrong end, IMO. >>> >> >> reproducability != correctness. >> >> I agree that automation is a good idea, but it might also be a good idea >> to test the results of that automation, neh? >> > Indeed. My point, however, was that I would *first* automatize, *then* > validate. The point of reproducibility is to cut down on the amount of > (repeated) validation you have to do afterwards, no ? :-) Makes sense to me. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] Boost 1.36.0 release notice
by David Abrahams 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

on Fri Aug 15 2008, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote: > Why can't the packaging process be automatized, making it fully > reproducible ? Trying to increase the amount of tests run on the final > package attacs the problem from the wrong end, IMO. reproducability != correctness. I agree that automation is a good idea, but it might also be a good idea to test the results of that automation, neh? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

1 0