February 2009 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[function] bug
by Okko Willeboordse 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Applies for 1.37 and 1.38. Using VS2008, SDK 6.1 See ...\function\function_template.hpp 945 #if !defined(BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS) 946 try { 947 #endif 948 if (!f.empty()) { 949 this->vtable = f.vtable; 950 f.vtable->manager(f.functor, this->functor, 951 boost::detail::function::move_functor_tag); 952 f.vtable = 0; 953 #if !defined(BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS) 954 } else { 955 clear(); 956 } 957 } catch (...) { 958 vtable = 0; 959 throw; 960 } 961 #endif 962 } Line 953 #if !defined(BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS) must be moved 3 lines down like; 945 #if !defined(BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS) 946 try { 947 #endif 948 if (!f.empty()) { 949 this->vtable = f.vtable; 950 f.vtable->manager(f.functor, this->functor, 951 boost::detail::function::move_functor_tag); 952 f.vtable = 0; 953 } else { 954 clear(); 955 } 956 #if !defined(BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS) 957 } catch (...) { 958 vtable = 0; 959 throw; 960 } 961 #endif 962 }

3 4

[Date-Time] local date time "+=" Bug?
by Michael Mathews 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi Folks, Here is the issue. If you have a local_date_time before the change in daylight saving time to Standard time or vice versa if you add one day to it the answer is incorrect. Here is a short example: #include "boost/date_time/local_time/local_time.hpp" #include "boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp" #include "boost/date_time/local_time_adjustor.hpp" using namespace boost; using namespace local_time; using namespace gregorian; using namespace boost::posix_time; int main(){ typedef boost::date_time::local_adjustor<boost::posix_time::ptime, -6,boost::posix_time::us_dst> local_adj; std::string bryan_string = "CST-06:00:00CDT+01:00:00,M3.2.0/02:00:00,M11.1.0/02:00:00"; boost::local_time::time_zone_ptr tzptr(new boost::local_time::posix_time_zone(bryan_string)); boost::local_time::local_date_time fallback(local_adj::local_to_utc(ptime(date(2008,11,2), minutes(0))),tzptr); std::cout<<fallback<<std::endl; fallback+=days(1); std::cout<<fallback<<std::endl; fallback-=days(1); std::cout<<fallback<<std::endl; boost::local_time::local_date_time springahead(local_adj::local_to_utc(ptime(date(2008,3,9), minutes(0))),tzptr); std::cout<<std::endl; std::cout<<springahead<<std::endl; springahead+=days(1); std::cout<<springahead<<std::endl; springahead-=days(1); std::cout<<springahead<<std::endl; } this code produces the following output with 1.37 and 1.38 2008-Nov-02 00:00:00 CDT 2008-Nov-02 23:00:00 CST 2008-Nov-02 00:00:00 CDT 2008-Mar-09 00:00:00 CST 2008-Mar-10 01:00:00 CDT 2008-Mar-09 00:00:00 CST michael

1 0

Interest in a protected pointer
by Ray Logel 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Is there any interest in pointer wrapper similar to scoped_ptr or shared_ptr which can be used for pointer member variable which can the referenced value can't be modified by non const functions? This class wouldn't be responsible for any memory management and could have a shared pointer version as well. For example: template<typename T> class protected_ptr { T * ptr; // ... T * get(); const T * get() const; // ... including operator* and operator-> } class Foo { protected_ptr<Bar> _bar; void Func1() { _bar->NonConstFunc(); _bar->ConstFunc(); } void Func2() const { _bar->NonConstFunc(); // Compile error _bar->ConstFunc(); // Ok } } Ray Logel

6 6

[1.39.0] Open for merging
by Beman Dawes 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

The release branch (https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/release) is open for merging all stable changes from trunk, including bug fixes and major upgrades to existing libraries. Breaking changes should be coordinated via the mailing list with the developers of the other libraries affected. New libraries may be added, but only with the permission of a release manager. In other words, except for new libraries, merging changes *does not* need permission from a release manager. I.e. just do it! The release schedule: * March 13, 2009: branches/release closed for new libraries and breaking changes to existing libraries. Still open for bug fixes and other routine changes to all libraries. * March 20, 2009: Release managers start QA checks. * April 3, 2009: branches/release closed for major code changes. Still open for serious problem fixes and docs changes. * April 10, 2009: branches/release closed for all library changes except when specific permission given by release manager(s). * April 17, 2009: Beta release target date. Further betas and/or release candidates as feedback dictates. * May 1, 2009: Release ship date. Links relating to this release: * Google Calendar with the release schedule: <http://www.boost.org/development/index.html>. * Release schedule explanation: <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ReleaseSchedule>. * Release practices for developers: <http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingPractices>. --Beman Dawes, Daniel James, Eric Niebler, Rene Rivera

1 0

Re: [boost] Boost 1.38.0 released
by Daniel James 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

2009/2/10 Marshall Clow <marshall(a)idio.com>: > Done. > And Boost 1.39.0 as a milestone for "to be fixed" We also need a few new components: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/2702 thanks, Daniel

3 2

[thread][repost] too many unnoticed posts
by vicente.botet 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi Anthony, I have made a ticket of each one of the unnoticed post. #2742 Why the at_thread_exit cleanup function is const? Bugs Problem #2741 proposal to manage portable and non portablethread attributes Feature Requests Not Applicable #2740 thread_group::size complexity Feature Requests Optimization #2739 shouldn't at_thread_exit work on the main thread? Bugs Showstopper #2738 at_thread_exit move overloading Feature Requests Optimization #2664 Add unique_lock constructor taking a Duration Feature Requests Problem I can understand that you are very busy. Let me know if I can help you with these tickets. Best, Vicente

2 2

Trac system Milestone
by vicente.botet 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi, I see in the Trac system that there are bugs with Milestone 1.36, 1.37. 1.38 and To be determined. As we will not have 1.36.x, 1.37.x releases, and possibly neither 1.38, shouldn't we change the Milestone to 1.39? For the To be determined, shouldn't we change to the corresponding Milestone Boost 1.39, Boost.Jam 3.1.18 Boost.Jam 4.0.0, Website 1.X. Maybe the ToBeDetermined Milestone is not a good idea. I have not counted the tickets without a Milestone, I don't know how to do. BTW, Should'nt the version be a mandatory field? As there are 196 + 97 + 156 + 181= 630 tickets to change it would be great if there is an easy way to do that. Best, Vicente Milestone: Boost 1.36.0 Completed 6 months ago (08/15/08) 62% Closed tickets: 324 Active tickets: 196 / Total tickets: 520 Milestone: Boost 1.37.0 Completed 3 months ago (11/02/08) 55% Closed tickets: 120 Active tickets: 97 / Total tickets: 217 Milestone: Boost 1.38.0 Completed 7 hours ago (02/10/09) 38% Closed tickets: 96 Active tickets: 156 / Total tickets: 252 Milestone: To Be Determined 61% Closed tickets: 279 Active tickets: 181 / Total tickets: 460

1 0

Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009
by Tom Brinkman 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009 Braddock Gaskill http://braddock.com/~braddock/future Anthony Williams http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/files/n2561_future.hpp Please review one or both libraries for submission to boost. Apparently, Anthony Williams' submission has also been sumbitted the C++ standards committee. Status unknown. As always, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review(s): What is your evaluation of the design(s)? What is your evaluation of the implementation(s)? What is your evaluation of the documentation? What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library(s)? Did you try to use the library? With what compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? How much effort did you put into your evaluation(s)? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Do you think the libraries should be accepted into Boost as-is or should they be merged? Apparently, there has been various discussions about these two libraries last six months. The authors will need to bring us up to date as to why they want their libraries to be reviewed seperately. Also, each author should evaluate each others library and point out the differences in their implentations. These will serve as useful discussion points. The ideal outcome in my mind would be a resubmitted submission, incorporating the best ideas from each. Tell me if you share this view or what is your preferred result. As always, your reviews will certainly assist the authors in improving their libraries even further. Thank you in advance. Please feel free to participate in any discussion even if your not going to provide a full review. Review Manager Tom Brinkman

13 61

[test] como failures
by Steven Watanabe 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

AMDG See for instance http://tinyurl.com/anwyuk Simply switching from setenv to putenv in boost/test/utils/runtime/putenv.hpp seems to solve the problem. Since libcomo just inherits putenv from the C library, I don't understand what this workaround is supposed to be doing. In Christ, Steven Watanabe

2 1

Detecting reuslt_of support - Error with VC 9
by Joel Falcou 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

I've developepd this code snippet to detect if a type has the proper inner types for supporting result_of protocol : http://codepad.org/mcY4K7Sf It works fine under gcc and icc but fail under VC 9 with the following error : error C2903: 'result' : symbol is neither a class template nor a function template error C3202: 'result' : invalid default argument for template parameter '<Unknown>', expected a class template error C2976: 'has_result_impl' : too few template arguments seems I can't make VC to accept an unspecified template type as a template template parameter. Is there any known workaround for this situation I can implement to make this traits works in VC 9 ?

4 4