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

CRC - error: shift count is too large
by Mike Dalgity 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi, I'm attempting to get the Boost CRC to compile for a TI C6713 DSP. I'm using C6000 Code Gen Tools 6.1.6 which is based on EDG. STL implementation is from Dinkumware. When I include <boost/crc.hpp> I get the following errors: "C:/Program Files/boost_1_37_0/boost/crc.hpp", line 286: error: shift count is too large detected during instantiation of class "boost::detail::high_uint_t<Bits> [with Bits=64U]" at line 433 "C:/Program Files/boost_1_37_0/boost/crc.hpp", line 288: error: shift count is too large detected during instantiation of class "boost::detail::high_uint_t<Bits> [with Bits=64U]" at line 433 I'm new to Boost so I could use some help figuring this out. I looked at crc.hpp and high_uint_t appears to be a structure containing two uint_t types corresponding with the errors. In integer.hpp the uint_t struct does not evaluate long long. On this architecture a long is 48 bits and long long is 64 bits. I've only included the header so why is it trying to instantiate a 64 bit type? Thanks, Mike

1 1

[xpressive] Overlapping match results?
by Dave Jenkins 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Is there a way to get overlapping match results from Xpressive? For example, when searching for "aa" in the string "aaaa", I want three results [as]as, a[aa]a, and aa[aa]. Currently, I'm only getting the two non-overlapping results [aa]aa and aa[aa]. I tried the regex 'a' >> before('a'). That almost gave me what I wanted (three results with the correct positions). The problem is that the lengths are wrong. What I need are lengths that include the before() characters. Is that possible? I know in this simple example I could just add 1 to the lengths, but I'm looking for overlapping results on more complex regexes. Thanks, Dave Jenkins

2 2

boost compile to arm
by leslie lige 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi, I'm tring to cross compile boost 1.37 to arm, I found that I need to add "__arm__" definition to get compile correctly, but I don't know where do I define __arm__ macro will be global to all. Defautly, the arch is defined as __i386__ when I do cross compile with arm toolchain. regards, Leslie _________________________________________________________________ Explore the seven wonders of the world http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE

2 3

building regex with icu
by Sean Farrow 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hi: what aditional command line switches/parameters do I need to add to bjam to build regex with icu? Chers Sean.

4 3

this_thread::sleep + undefined reference?
by John D 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

Hello This will be an exceptionally stupid problem for whomever is kind enough to clarify a cause and solution. I will keep it brief in hopes that it is not an issue in need of complexity. The code: boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(20)); The attempt: g++ -lcurl -lboost_thread -lpthread -pthread c.cpp -o app /tmp/cc2YRa76.o: In function `void boost::this_thread::sleep<boost::date_time::subsecond_duration<boost::posix_time::time_duration, 1000ll> >(boost::date_time::subsecond_duration<boost::posix_time::time_duration, 1000ll> const&)': c.cpp:(.text._ZN5boost11this_thread5sleepINS_9date_time18subsecond_durationINS_10posix_time13time_durationELx1000EEEEEvRKT_[void boost::this_thread::sleep<boost::date_time::subsecond_duration<boost::posix_time::time_duration, 1000ll> >(boost::date_time::subsecond_duration<boost::posix_time::time_duration, 1000ll> const&)]+0x50): undefined reference to `boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::ptime const&)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status I will post more code if need be, but even general guidance will likely lead me to a solution. Thanks John

4 6

Re: [Boost-users] [boost] tweaking the review process
by David Abrahams 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

on Fri Nov 21 2008, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > Stjepan Rajko wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Phillips >> <phillips(a)mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote: >>> Stjepan Rajko wrote: >>>> [snip] >>> Do you think it would help if the Wizards stressed this need and requested >>> an affirmation of it as part of the lead in to the review? >>> >> >> Definitely. I'm not sure whether stressing this requirement would >> turn off potential review managers because of the added effort, but I >> think it would make the overall review process better. >> >> Stjepan > > > I don't want to discourage anyone who will do a good job of managing a review, but > if we decide this is a necessary step in providing a good review then I'm not upset by > discouraging anyone who won't do it. I'm not sure just what's being proposed here (so this might be off-base), but it's important not to make anything unnecessarily burdensome. We need to rely on peoples' intelligence and sense of responsibility without making egregious rules. For example, a review manager should not -- in general -- need to do a comprehensive review herself; she has enough on her plate already. 95% of the time it should be enough to make a judgement based on the other reviews: both their votes and their quality, depth, etc. At the end of the review period, if she is truly left unsure whether the library should be accepted, a review manager might go through the process herself, but otherwise a comprehensive review from the manager should not be required. I think it would be good if the review wizards could make it clear that they are available to provide guidance in case review managers have questions about how to do their jobs well. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com

2 1

tweaking the review process (was: signals2 review results)
by Stjepan Rajko 16 Dec '08

16 Dec '08

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:40 PM, vicente.botet <vicente.botet(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > I would like to make some suggestion to improve the review management: > Thank you for starting this discussion. > * I had notice only at the end of the the review that the review tokes place on two mailing lists (devel ans user). Maybe this is usaual on Boost reviews but I was not aware. It will be more transaparent if all the reviews were posted to the same mailing list, maybe a specific one should be created. Yes, this is a bit of an issue. I mentioned that both lists are used in my post that opened the review (in my notes to first-time reviewers) to try to give people a heads-up (but... I often get long-winded and I'm sure it's easy to miss parts of my posts :-)). Having a dedicated, or at least recommended mailing list (either dev or user) might be a good thing. The only problem I see regarding a completely separate mailing list is that it requires active effort to sign-up for and follow. I think that for many people (even those that are genuinely interested in the library), the fact that the review is happening at time X-Y very easily slips off the radar. Having the e-mails constantly appear in the common lists also serves to remind everyone of the ongoing review, and I suspect it leads to many valuable impromptu comments and even full reviews from people that perhaps weren't originally planning on participating in the review, but end up following the review because it happens on the list (I recall being in this situation myself several times). > > * From the 5 committing reviewers making this review possible only 3 made a review and 2 of them late. I'm wondering if this new rule must be preserved as the review can be accepted without the commiting reviewers review. Trying to use committed reviewers was a new thing for this review (it was proposed by others in http://tinyurl.com/48tdjs) Now that it has been tried out, it would be good to reflect on how things went. For the reviews that were late, the reviewers were very diligently contacting me about their changing time constraints and offered times that would work for them, and I found those times acceptable. Out of the two committed reviewers that did not submit, one also diligently worked with me on setting up an alternative timeline, but in the end contacted me saying that a full review would not be possible after all, and offered a brief report of looking into the library and a brief rationale for acceptance (as the points matched those of other reviewers, I didn't forward it to the list). I was not able to contact the final reviewer after a certain point. I think the major benefit of the committed reviewers is the high probability that they actually will submit a review. Things always happen, and boost contributions are all volunteer time, but I found that overall the committed reviewers *very responsibly* succeeded in keeping their commitment as well as they could. Were they not committed reviewers, I suspect many of them would have considered giving up. In addition, the extensions that the committed reviewers negotiated gave other reviewers a chance to contribute. So, I feel that committed reviews are a good way of reasonably making sure that a certain number of reviews will be submitted. I'm not sure that the library acceptance / rejection should be influenced by the number of committed reviews (reviews from others are a perfectly good substitute). While we're on this topic... The one thing that the number of committed reviewers should definitely influence is whether the review happens in the first place. We were fortunate to get 5 people sign up, which was the only threshold proposed, so we followed through with the review. I was wondering what to do if the threshold wasn't crossed, and I think what I would have proposed is some sort of a holding pattern, where the review schedule page is updated to say something like "signals2 - reviewers needed, contact review manager to sign up as a reviewer". Once the threshold is crossed, the reviewers, manager and author can schedule a time. Another thing... many of the committed reviewers reported that they were first time reviewers (and the reviews they submitted were impressively detailed and very valuable). Personally, I was thrilled by this, since getting new participation in boost is critical to sustaining its quality . Perhaps some combination of allowing reviewers to commit beforehand, and explicitly encouraging reviews focused on the user perspective (another suggestion from the http://tinyurl.com/48tdjs thread), helped in getting first-time reviewers (perhaps the reviewers can comment on this?). > > * There were some reviews that came into this list by the intermediation of the review manager with a delay between the posting of the reviwer and forward from the RM. One negative review posted the 4th and reveived in this list the 11th other positive posted the 2nd and received in this list 3rd. I think that the review manager should not encourage the reviewers to send the reviews to himself. This will avoid this kind of delays. So I purpose that only the reviews sent to this single mailing list must be taken in account. Yes, this particular delay is entirely my fault. I can't explain why I didn't notice this email until so late (which is the point where I contacted the poster notifying him I would like to forward the mail, and forwarded it the following morning). Allowing reviews to be sent to the review manager is straight from http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html (Introduction paragraph). There are two valid reasons for this, IMO: * the reviewer is only subscribed to one of {boost, boost-user, boost-announce} lists, and would like the reviewer to be forwarded to both boost and boost-user lists (if there was a dedicated review list, like you suggest, that was also open to all posters, then this reason would go away) * the reviewer would like to remain anonymous to the list (granted, this could also be accomplished by sending from an anonymous e-mail). If this stays as it is, the RM should be more diligent about monitoring her personal mail, which I apparently wasn't. > > * Even if the review was over the 10th there were 2 accepting reviews comming from the commiting reviewers just some hours before the review result annoncement 19th. I think that the review manager must state clearly when the review is over and do not accept any review after. This do not means that the RMcannot change this date, but annnce it clearly. I tried to keep my timeline as transparent as possible. In my review-closing email, I asked people to let me know if they were considering writing a review. Those that contacted me were informed of the timeline of pending reviews. When the last promised review was submitted, I set a hard deadline. Given the uncertainty in people's schedules, I decided to approach this in a flexible way. That was just my personal preference - I'm sure setting a hard deadline earlier would have been a fine choice as well. > > I hope this will help to improve future reviews, > Thanks again for starting this discussion and for your suggestions - I also hope good improvements will come out of it. Stjepan

3 2

building boost (regex) in mingw
by Lorenzo Bettini 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi I'm trying to install boost regex library under mingw but I can't seem to succeed... the simple configure way does not work I've also tried bjam --build-dir=./tmp --toolset=gcc stage --with-regex but this does not create .a .so files, but only .lib files that I cannot use with mingw compiler... any help please? thanks in advance Lorenzo

1 0

Lite serialization lib optimized for performance
by Sebastian.Karlsson＠mmorpgs.org 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

Hi, I've created a small serialization library which takes a lot of inspiration from the great works of Robert Ramey. The main difference is that my implementation has favoured performance and file size while trying to maintain most of the goodies of boost::serialization. The largest thing missing, I believe, is pointer tracking. I'd like to make it available both for review and others in case there's any interest for such a library, but know of no good public place to make it available. // Sebastian Karlsson

2 3

Re: [Boost-users] Fast XML Parser
by Alan M. Carroll 15 Dec '08

15 Dec '08

That's only nicer if you have a use for XPath. That is one reason I wouldn't recommend rapidXML in use cases where the application is doing non-trivial edits of the DOM tree, because that's the kind of situation in which XPath is useful. But if your application consumes all the XML every time and writes the entire DOM tree every time, then XPath is of no utility. It's in some sense unfortunate, but the bottom line is that there isn't "the best" XML library, only more or less appropriate ones for particular use cases. I suspect this is a big contributor to the lack of XML support from Boost. At 05:38 AM 12/15/2008, Jose wrote: >Yes, rapidXML is quite nice. It was inspired by pugixml >http://code.google.com/p/pugixml/, which is even nicer becaue it >provides an xpath support. >I personally find rapidXML not as useful/nice without xpath support. >It's also quite easy to migrate from either one library to the other

1 0