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

[Log 2.0] rotating files size limiation
by Ovanes Markarian 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello *, I am a bit stuck to implement a very simple scenario with boost log. I need to limit the size of entire rotation log. My current logger configuration looks like that: void setup_logging( channel_settings_t const& settings , std::string const& log_file , std::string const& log_level ) { config_logger_attributes(logging::core::get(), settings, log_level); using namespace logging::aux::default_attribute_names; //add logging to file (which implicitly deletes the default console logger) logging::add_file_log ( keywords::auto_flush = true, keywords::open_mode = std::ios::out | std::ios::app, keywords::file_name = log_file+"_%N.log", keywords::rotation_size = 50 * 1024, // Just for test limit to 50K keywords::format = //"%TimeStamp%: [%Channel%] |ThreadId| <%Severity%> %Message%" expr::format("%1% : [%2%] |%3%| <%4%> %5%") % expr::attr< boost::posix_time::ptime >(timestamp()) % expr::attr<std::string>(channel()) % expr::attr<attrs::current_thread_id::value_type>(thread_id()) % trivial::severity % expr::smessage )->locked_backend()->set_file_collector ( sinks::file::make_collector ( keywords::target = "logs" , keywords::max_size = 200 * 1024 // just for test limit to 200K ) ) ; } Unfortunately, I can't find what the target keyword means, despite the fact that it is a target directory. Target directory relating to smth or should there be a full path? Should this target directory exist? I did a test and rotating log files just grow upon the 200K limit. I just want to have let's say 3 or 4 last rotated log files, the rest should be removed? We already ran into the situation, where the logger used all disc space and the server crashed :( Any help if very appreciated! Thanks, Ovanes

1 1

Does Boost.Test cover 'golden file approach'?
by Journeyer J. Joh 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello, I know almost nothing about 'golden file approach'. http://weblogs.java.net/blog/alexeyp/archive/2007/02/testing_command.html >From this blog, you can find the term 'golden file approach'. I want to know if Boost.Test cover this kind of testing. Can I implement 'golden file approach' with Boost.Test? If so please provide me more information about it. Thank you very much. ---------------------------------------- Journeyer J. Joh o o s a p r o g r a m m e r a t g m a i l d o t c o m ----------------------------------------

3 5

lockfree::queue restrictions and performance on linux
by Leon Mlakar 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello, after quite a while I'm back to using Boost (and back to the list) and quite happy to see that it made significant progress since I last last used it. One of the libraries that got my attentions is lockfree, the lockfree::queue in particular, since it almost completely meets my needs. Except that I've been wondering why is it that it places the requirement for the trivial destructor on the items it stores? I mean, that really reduces its usability. Is this something inherent to its design? I guess that this has been discussed during the review but a quick digging through the archives didn't come up anything on this. The reason for asking is that I have forced the queue to accept std::shared_ptr and this seems to work almost fine, except that there seem to be an extra reference left to the item last popped, but that's something I can live with. Another thing was its performance - I ran a sort of quick benchmark (queue of shared_ptr's to item containing atomic<int> as a counter, items were popped from the queue and immediately pushed back after decrementing the counter) and its perfromance was next to stellar on OSX (with multiple consumers and producers something like forty times faster than std::queue with mutex) but very poor on Linux. While I can understand that locking runs fast on Linux due to its spinlock/futex implementation of mutexes, I have no explanation for the poor performance of lockless::queue (with two producer/consumer threads std::queue with mutex was about 15 times faster and about 20 times slower than when run on OSX on the similar hardware). Did anybody else observe the same poor performance behavior? I used Boost 1.54 and tested with both gcc 4.8 and clang 3.5 and got similar results with both. Regards, Leon

2 3

[Boost::any] Memory management using dynamic libraries
by Eugenio Bargiacchi 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

I'm building a framework which needs to allow communication between shared libraries which are loaded at runtime. Each shared library provides its own implementation of an abstract interface contained in the framework (called Module), and all Modules are called sequentially multiple times doing the work they need to do. Since modules need to communicate with each other with custom data types, I though of using an std::unordered_map<std::string,boost::any> kept by the framework and shared with the Modules. The map is filled and read by the modules when their code is called through the Module interface which the framework knows (virtual functions). However after a bug I realized that each boost::any value is allocated by the modules, which is logical, since the framework itself has no knowledge of the types that will be stored in the map, and thus the code to allocate them must reside in the libraries themselves. I was wondering whether this could be a problem both during overwriting of a map value (since boost::any has to destroy its old contents) and during program shutdown. This could maybe be because modules use their own allocators. The problem that I had, for example, resulted in a segfault if I tried to unload the modules from memory before the destruction of the map (which is owned by the framework), during boost::any destruction. I assume this happened because the contents of boost::any were created in memory that was then unloaded during the unloading of the shared libraries, resulting in the segfault. And this yet does not take into account custom allocators! So I'm wondering what the best approach here would be. If I would need to keep track of the current "owner" of each single boost::any value allocated, and use it to manually destroy instances when required, or if there is a better way, maybe using some particular boost::any property. Many thanks in advance!

3 3

[Test] using output_test_stream to compare in the middle of a file
by Lloyd 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, We need to test a function which reads a "record" from a binary file. We want to compare the buffer with the "record" in input file.We know the offset of the record in input file. How can we compare the output_test_stream with a certain offset (and length) of the file? or is there any alternative for this? Thanks, Lloyd

2 1

Boost.Test segfault clang++3.3 macports cmake
by Dave Gomboc 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

I am getting a segmentation fault when attempting to use Boost.Test. I suspect that I don't have something set up correctly -- your assistance in remedying this would be appreciated. I am using clang++-mp-3.3 as installed by MacPorts on OS X 10.8.4. Here's the crash, which occurs after Boost.Test reports "*** No errors detected". Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory. Reason: 13 at address: 0x0000000000000000 0x000000010006f6d6 in boost::unit_test::test_unit::~test_unit () (gdb) bt #0 0x000000010006f6d6 in boost::unit_test::test_unit::~test_unit () #1 0x000000010003bb5f in boost::unit_test::master_test_suite_t::~master_test_suite_t () #2 0x000000010003bcdd in boost::unit_test::framework_impl::~framework_impl () #3 0x00007fff8f465307 in __cxa_finalize () #4 0x00007fff8f466f57 in exit () #5 0x00007fff96ddc7e8 in start () (gdb) Here's a somewhat simplified version of what I have: ==== UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp ==== #pragma clang diagnostic push #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wall" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdisabled-macro-expansion" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wexit-time-destructors" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-semi" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wglobal-constructors" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wmissing-prototypes" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wsign-conversion" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wundef" #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wweak-vtables" #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #pragma clang diagnostic pop ==== HaveBoostUnitTestFrameworkDefineMain.cpp ==== #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE All_Tests #include "UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp" /* commenting out the next 3 lines makes no difference */ namespace boost { namespace unit_test { namespace framework { master_test_suite_t & master_test_suite(); } } } // namespace boost::unit_test::framework ==== CMakeLists.txt ==== cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.10 FATAL_ERROR) cmake_policy(VERSION 2.8.10) project (Foo) add_definitions(-DBOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK) add_library (foo SHARED Foo1.hpp more files... UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp Foo1.cpp more files... ) find_package(Boost COMPONENTS unit_test_framework REQUIRED) include_directories(${Boost_INCLUDE_DIRS}) file(GLOB_RECURSE test_source_files *.unit_tests.cpp) link_directories(${Boost_LIBRARY_DIRS}) add_executable(all_tests HaveBoostUnitTestFrameworkDefineMain.cpp ${test_source_files}) target_link_libraries(all_tests foo ${Boost_UNIT_TEST_FRAMEWORK_LIBRARY} ) set(CTEST_OUTPUT_ON_FAILURE TRUE) enable_testing() add_test(all_tests all_tests) set(CMAKE_C_COMPILER "clang-mp-3.3") set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "-Weverything --std=c11 -O3 -DNDEBUG") set(CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER "clang++-mp-3.3") set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "-ferror-limit=1 --std=c++1y -stdlib=libc++ -Weverything -Wno-c++98-compat -Wno-c++98-compat-pedantic -Wno-padded -O3 -DNDEBUG") ==== Foo1.hpp ==== (has declarations, but nothing that depends on Boost at all -- nor does any other non-test file) ==== Foo1.cpp ==== (has definitions, but nothing that depends on Boost at all -- nor does any other non-test file) ====Foo1.unit_tests.cpp ==== #include "Foo1.hpp" #include <string> #pragma clang diagnostic push #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wglobal-constructors" #include "UseBoostUnitTestFramework.hpp" BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Bar1) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(foobar1) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(std:string("a"), std::string("a")); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(foobar2) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(true, true); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE(Bar2) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(barfoo1) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(1, 1); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(barfoo2) { BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(0, 0); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() #pragma clang diagnostic pop

3 2

[predef] [rfc] Mutually exclusive definitions?
by Rene Rivera 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

After going back and re-reading various commentaries for the review of Boost.Predef and some after the review I'm questioning a design choice of Boost.Predef. Currently Boost.Predef will define multiple symbols when, for example, a compiler "emulates" another compiler. The current common occurrence of this is the GCC compiler which many other compilers emulate by defining the GCC version macros. This is no longer the case for the OS definitions though. The OS definitions are mutually exclusive. And hence in order to make for a more consistent behavior I am considering changing the library to make not just OS defs mutually exclusive. But also making compiler, library, and architecture mutually exclusive. And I'm asking for some general feedback as to what the most useful approach, from using Boost.Predef, is likely to be. In particular I'm considering the following choices: 1. Simple mutual exclusion of BOOST_ARCH_*, BOOST_COMP_*, BOOST_LIB_C_*, BOOST_LIB_STD_*, and of course BOOST_OS_* definitions. 2. Mutual exclusion of the base/real definitions with the addition of *_EMULATED definitions when multiple defs detected. For example for GCC we would have BOOST_COMP_GCC_EMULATED indicated the version of the GCC being emulated. 3. No mutual exclusion of base definitions but with the addition of a "flag" definition when multiple defs are detected. For example with GCC it would have the usual BOOST_COMP_GCC but also have a "#define BOOST_COMP_GCC_IS_EMULATED". 4. Do nothing and live with multiple definitions and the current discrepancy in behavior for BOOST_OS definitions. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

1 0

[test] floating point comparison
by Matthijs Möhlmann 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hello all, I've the following test program: #define BOOST_TEST_DYN_LINK #define BOOST_TEST_MAIN #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE Master test suite #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(TestCase) { BOOST_REQUIRE_CLOSE_FRACTION(45.00f, 45.17f, 0.004f); } When I compile it with the following line: g++ -o main.o -c -Werror -Wall -std=c++11 -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -DBOOST_SPIRIT_USE_PHOENIX_V3 -DUTEST -g main.cpp g++ -o main main.o -lboost_unit_test_framework I get the following output: Running 1 test case... *** No errors detected If I lower the tolerance to 0.0004f then I'll get the following: Running 1 test case... main.cpp(8): fatal error in "TestCase": difference{0.00376352} between 45.00f{45} and 45.17f{45.1699982} exceeds 0.00039999999 *** 1 failure detected in test suite "Master test suite" Why does it say that the difference is 0.00376352 and not 0.17....... ? Regards, Matthijs Möhlmann

4 4

BOOST.TEST Mixing automatic and manual test registratioI
by Manuel Maier 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, Is it possible to mix manual and automatic test registration in Boost,.Test. Example: BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE( ExampleTestSuite ) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( testcase1 ) { BOOST_TEST_MESSAGE("Test 1 in Example Test Suite"); BOOST_WARN_EQUAL(1, 1); BOOST_REQUIRE_MESSAGE(5 > 1, "Here is an example message. Something may be wrong"); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() Now I want to manually add a testcase to this testsuite. This seems to be important for me, as there is no automatic registration version for BOOST_PARAM_TEST_CASE(...) I also made a manualTestRegstration: test_suite* TestSuiteA = BOOST_TEST_SUITE("test_suiteA"); void manualTestCaseRegistration() { TestSuiteA->add( &test_case ); framework::master_test_suite().add( TestSuiteA ); } Is it possible to add a manual testcase(e.g.: test_case_b) to the ExampleTestSuite? Searching the internet I stumbled over following thread: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7000 But it seems to me this patch never made it to release(at least until now). In fact( I guess) this could/would be exactly the feature I am looking for. Kind Regards and thanks for help Manuel _____________________________________________ Manuel Maier, B. Eng. Business Unit "Motion" / Research & Development Bernecker + Rainer Industrie-Elektronik Ges.m.b.H. B&R Strasse 1 5142 Eggelsberg Austria Tel: +43 7748 6586 Fax: +43 7748 6586 - 24 Email: manuel.maier(a)br-automation.com http://www.br-automation.com ____________________________________________________________ Firmenbuchnummer: Landesgericht Ried im Innkreis / FN 111651 v

3 3

[boost.test] How to register custom exception for auto test?
by Jörg Becker 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

Hi, I'm using the test library of boost 1.49.0 for my unit tests. It works fine so fare, but if my program throws an error, I get the default error message unknown location(0): fatal error in "excption1_test": unknown type, witch hides the original error message. I tried to register an error translator, but without success. Here is what I tried (modified test/test/custom_exception_test.cpp to use auto test with global fixture): #define BOOST_TEST_MODULE "boost test custom_exception_test" #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> #include <boost/test/unit_test_monitor.hpp> using namespace boost::unit_test; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE( custom_exception_testsuite ) struct my_exception1 { explicit my_exception1( int res_code ) : m_res_code( res_code ) {} int m_res_code; }; void throw_my_exception1() { throw my_exception1( 12 ); } void my_exception1_translator( my_exception1 ) { BOOST_TEST_MESSAGE( "Caught my_exception1" ); } class my_config { public: my_config () { unit_test_monitor.register_exception_translator<my_exception1>( &my_exception1_translator ); } }; BOOST_GLOBAL_FIXTURE( my_config ) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( excption1_test ) { throw_my_exception1(); } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END() Can anybody tell me what I'm missing? Thanks, Jörg

3 5