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

bad include guards
by Steven Watanabe 26 Jan '17

26 Jan '17

AMDG The following pairs of files have identical include guards ./boost/concept_check/general.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept_check/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/filesystem/cerrno.hpp ./boost/cerrno.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/tree.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/detail/tree.hpp ./boost/mpl/min_max.hpp ./boost/mpl/max.hpp ./boost/mpl/vector/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/mpl/list/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity_fwd.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity.hpp ./boost/python/pointee.hpp ./boost/python/detail/pointee.hpp ./boost/spirit/phoenix/closures.hpp ./boost/lambda/closures.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/v1_/proto_typeof.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/proto_typeof.hpp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_dep_nested_class.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_mem_templates.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_std_allocator.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/conversion/test.hpp ./libs/any/test.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/expand_bwd_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/allocation_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/iostreams/test/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./boost/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_regex_search.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_partial_match.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/C.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/A.hpp ./libs/xpressive/perf/regex_comparison.hpp ./libs/regex/performance/regex_comparison.hpp ./tools/inspect/time_string.hpp ./tools/common/time_string.hpp In Christ, Steven Watanabe

5 8

Why no non-null smart pointers?
by Ross MacGregor 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

I just created a very small smart pointer libary for our project. It will contain two types of shared pointers: SharedHandle and NullableSharedHandle. SharedHandle will be a shared pointer that cannot be null by ensuring a non-null construction while NullableSharedHandle will basically be a typedef for boost::shared_ptr. I firmly believe that code can be made more reliable by minimizing the use of nullable pointers. To this end, I think it is important that we start using non-null pointer types. Ideally the compiler would be able to understand a non-null pointer and catch bugs at compile time, but I think we can still improve things with a few runtime checks. If we make sure that a shared pointer is constructed with a non-null pointer and ban any reset() type methods, we guarentee that it points to something. This can be beneficial for the following reasons: 1. Any function that uses this type will no longer be burdened with precondition checks to make sure variables of this type are not null. 2. It's type is simply more explicit and better explains its function. 3. Moving the non-null check to the creation phase will reduce the possibility of encountering null pointer exceptions at runtime (assuming there are many more pointer references than constructor calls). So my little pointer library seems to make a lot of sense, but if so why hasn't this simple smart pointer variation made it into boost yet? Has this been discussed somewhere already? My search on non-null smart pointers is not revealing much discussion on the topic. Regards, Ross

9 16

[#pragma once]
by Sid Sacek 18 Nov '12

18 Nov '12

I've worked with the MSVC, Sun and GCC compilers. Each one of them supports #pragma once. Is there any reason to wrap this pragma within #ifdefs? Are there any compilers out there today that don't support this #pragma? #if defined( _MSC_VER ) && ( _MSC_VER >= 1020 ) # pragma once #endif Could we change this coding pattern so that it no longer looks like MSVC is being selfish? -Sid Sacek

17 20

[interprocess] message_queue hangs when another process dies
by Sergei Politov 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Hi, I have found the following problem with message_queue on win32 (MSVC 2008 + Windows Vista). Suppose we have 2 processes, one sends messages to queue, another reads them. When reading process dies (for instance using End process) during message_queue.receive the another process hangs in send. As I found during investigation, it tries to lock interprocess mutex, but it is already locked by dead process. So this message queue instance becomes unusable. I attached the example. Steps to reproduce: 1) Start "mq.exe s" (i.e. with argument s) It outs: sender: $PID 2) Start mq.exe without arguments. It outs: receiver: $PID 0 1 2 3 4 This time sender outs: send done: 3) At this point the message queue is empty and receiver waits for messages. End it with Task Manager. 4) Enter some number in sender console and press Enter. 5) The sender hangs in message_queue.send Best Regards, Sergei

6 13

Re: [boost] [date_time] Time zone improvements
by Rutger ter Borg 25 May '11

25 May '11

Jeff Garland wrote: > Very cool :-) One question -- is there a portable solution where a user > could deploy a files onto a Windows system or is it a Unix only solution? > I'm fine with incorporating a *nix only solution because what your > suggesting will be a nice solution for *nix platforms, but it will need to > be clear that it's not portable. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to deploy the (big-endian) binary files to any platform. Getting it into this binary form (using zone info compiler zic) may be harder to do cross-platform, but cygwin may help here. [snip] > As the primary maintainer of Boost date-time I can say with certainty that > there is interest in this functionality -- it's long been on my todo list > and I haven't had time to get to it. You can email me privately and we > can discuss all the details of how to get your code incorporated. I'll do! Regards, Rutger

5 9

[serialization] boost/serialization/path.hpp
by Johan Råde 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

There is no boost/serialization/path.hpp. I suggest the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #ifndef BOOST_SERIALIZATION_PATH_HPP #define BOOST_SERIALIZATION_PATH_HPP // MS compatible compilers support #pragma once #if defined(_MSC_VER) && (_MSC_VER >= 1020) #pragma once #endif #include <boost/config.hpp> #include <boost/filesystem/path.hpp> #include <boost/serialization/level.hpp> BOOST_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION(boost::filesystem::path, boost::serialization::primitive_type) #ifndef BOOST_NO_STD_WSTRING BOOST_CLASS_IMPLEMENTATION(boost::filesystem::wpath, boost::serialization::primitive_type) #endif namespace boost { namespace serialization { template<class Archive, class String, class Traits> void serialize(Archive& ar, boost::filesystem::basic_path<String, Traits>& p, const unsigned int version) { String s; if(Archive::is_saving::value) s = p.string(); ar & boost::serialization::make_nvp("string", s); if(Archive::is_loading::value) p = s; } }} #endif //-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments? Any suggested improvements? --Johan Råde

5 11

[C++0x] Emulation of scoped enums
by Beman Dawes 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

The improved type safety of the C++0x scoped enum feature is attractive, so I'd like to start using it as it becomes available in compilers. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2347.pdf for a description. Note that the committee changed the name from strongly typed enums to scoped enums. See the attached for a boost/detail header that provides macro wrappers that use scoped enums if available, otherwise fall back on C++03 namespaces and unscoped enums. It lets a library write: BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_START(algae) { green, red, cyan }; BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_END ... BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(algae) sample( algae::red ); void func(BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(algae)); and then a user can write: sample = algae::green; func( algae::cyan ); Comments or suggestions appreciated, --Beman // scoped_enum_emulation.hpp ---------------------------------------------------------// // Copyright Beman Dawes, 2009 // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. // See http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt // Generates C++0x scoped enums if the feature is present, otherwise emulates C++0x // scoped enums with C++03 namespaces and enums. The Boost.Config BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS // macro is used to detect feature support. // // Caution: only the syntax is emulated; the semantics are not emulated and // the syntax emulation doesn't include being able to specify the underlying type. // // See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2347.pdf for a // description of the feature. Note that the committee changed the name from // strongly typed enums to scoped enums. // // Sample usage: // // BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_START(algae) { green, red, cyan }; BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_END // ... // BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(algae) sample( algae::red ); // void foo( BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(algae) color ); // ... // sample = algae::green; // foo( algae::cyan ); #ifndef BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_EMULATION_HPP #define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_EMULATION_HPP #include <boost/config.hpp> #ifndef BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_START(name) enum class name # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_END # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(name) name #else # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_START(name) namespace name { enum enum_t # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_END } # define BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM(name) name::enum_t #endif #endif // BOOST_SCOPED_ENUM_EMULATION_HPP

14 27

[process] How to run test cases
by Boris 23 Jan '11

23 Jan '11

As Boost.Process 0.3 has been released it would be great if the test cases are run on various platforms. So far I've tested Boost.Process on WinXP with MSVC 9.0, Cygwin with g++ 3.4.4 and Solaris with g++ 3.4.6 and Sun C++ 5.9. To make it as easy as possible for others to run the test cases here's a short description of how to proceed. Nearly all test cases depend on a program called "helpers". This program is built first and is started by many test cases as a child process. In order to find the program "helpers" the test cases must know its location. As there is no way to get the location at runtime it is hardcoded in the file libs/process/test/misc.hpp. As the location differs depending on what compiler is used YOU MUST CHECK FIRST THE PATH IN libs/process/test/misc.hpp! Otherwise most of the test cases will fail as they look for a program "helpers" in the wrong directory. As of today only those paths are correct and have been tested which are set for Windows, Cygwin and Solaris. Only after you have checked and maybe updated the path in libs/process/test/misc.hpp you should try to build and run the test cases: WinXP/MSVC 9.0 ************** With MSVC 9.0 you only need to open the Visual Studio 2008 Command Prompt, change to the directory with the test cases and run bjam: C:\boost_1_36_0\libs\process\test> ..\..\..\bjam.exe -q Cygwin/GCC 3.4.4 **************** On Cygwin it's important to know if the Boost libraries have been built for the POSIX or Windows API. By default Boost libraries on Cygwin use the Windows API. With the Windows API the Boost.Process test cases are not passed successfully though (there are compiler errors where I'm not sure currently if they are a Boost.Process problem and how they could be fixed). If you want to run the test cases on Cygwin you must (re-)build the Boost libraries to use the POSIX API: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0 $ ./bjam cxxflags=-DBOOST_POSIX_API Afterwards you can run the test cases: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0/libs/process/test $ ../../../bjam cxxflags=-DBOOST_POSIX_API -q Solaris/GCC 3.4.6 ***************** At first you have to put the following line in ~/user-config.jam: using gcc : : : <linker-type>sun ; Then start building the Boost libraries: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0 $ ./bjam --toolset=gcc cxxflags=-mcpu=ultrasparc For the test cases to be passed successfully you must update Boost.Test. Change line 624 in ~/boost_1_36_0/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp temporarily to: - , m_CHLD_action( SIGCHLD, catch_system_errors, attach_dbg, alt_stack ) + , m_CHLD_action( SIGCHLD, false, attach_dbg, alt_stack ) It is important that the second parameter is false as the signal SIGCHLD should not be handled by the execution monitor and should not be reported as an error. Afterwards the test cases can be run: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0/libs/process/test $ ../../../bjam --toolset=gcc cxxflags=-mcpu=ultrasparc -q Solaris/Sun C++ 5.9 ******************* Build the Boost libraries with the sun toolset: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0 $ ./bjam --toolset=sun stdlib=sun-stlport For the test cases to be passed successfully you must update Boost.Test. Change line 624 in ~/boost_1_36_0/boost/test/impl/execution_monitor.ipp temporarily to: - , m_CHLD_action( SIGCHLD, catch_system_errors, attach_dbg, alt_stack ) + , m_CHLD_action( SIGCHLD, false, attach_dbg, alt_stack ) It is important that the second parameter is false as the signal SIGCHLD should not be handled by the execution monitor and should not be reported as an error. If you run the test cases now you'll get this compiler error for one test case: "../../../boost/asio/detail/socket_ops.hpp", line 218: Error: Cannot assign void* to char*. "../../../boost/asio/detail/socket_ops.hpp", line 229: Error: Cannot assign void* to char*. "../../../boost/asio/detail/descriptor_ops.hpp", line 66: Error: Cannot assign void* to char*. "../../../boost/asio/detail/descriptor_ops.hpp", line 72: Error: Cannot assign void* to char*. The bug has been reported to the Boost.Asio mailing list. If you want to build that one test case, too, you need to fix the two files in Boost.Asio 1.36.0 yourself. All the test cases can be built and run with: $ cd ~/boost_1_36_0/libs/process/test $ ../../../bjam --toolset=sun stdlib=sun-stlport -q

4 9

[RangeEx] Where is the current version?
by Mathias Gaunard 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Where is the current version (or a fairly recent version) of RangeEx? I can't find anything on the trunk, the sandbox or the vault.

5 13

[asio] read_until -- possibly misleading documentation?
by Richard Smith 15 Apr '10

15 Apr '10

The documentation for Boost.ASIO (which is otherwise very comprehensive) says of the boost::asio::read_until set of overloads: | Read data into a streambuf until a delimiter is | encountered. <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/boost_asio/reference/read_unt…> What the function actually does is to read blocks of data into the streambuf, and stop when the delimiter is found. This means that frequently data beyond the delimiter will be read into the streambuf. (And this is elaborated in more detail on the individual function's pages, if a reader looks there.) I appreciate that this behaviour is compatible with the documentation, but someone less familiar with ASIO could easily assume that the function will read as far as the delimiter and no further. (And I have just spent a fair amount of time debugging a piece of code where the author had made this assumption.) Could we change the summary documentation to read something like: | Read data into a streambuf at least until a delimiter is | encountered. The implementation may read beyond the | delimiter, but will not block when doing so. While I'm on the subject of ASIO documentation, I can't see any documentation on whether the service_name parameters to the basic_resolver_query constructors are allowed to be port numbers (e.g. "80") or whether they have to be symbolic names (e.g. "http"). Port numbers work, at least on Linux, but it's not clear whether this is something that I should be relying on. Similarly for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the host_name parameter. Richard Smith

3 2

Trac XMLRPC support
by Vladimir Prus 21 Mar '10

21 Mar '10

Would it be possible to have XMLRPC plugin installed in Boost Trac instance? See: http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/XmlRpcPlugin The installation appears to be fairly simple (and indeed seems to just work somewhere else). This will allow to use third-party tools to grab tickets from Boost Trac, which will hopefully lead to more issues fixed :-) - Volodya

4 5

boost::mpl::for_each and value_initialized
by Peter Foelsche 08 Feb '10

08 Feb '10

Dear All, what is the use of value_initialized in boost::mpl::for_each? It should be sufficient if the value is initialized by the constructor. value_initialized() calls memset() in before calling the constructor. This memset() is not being optimized away with gnu-c++ 4.4.1. What class does require zeroed memory to work correctly? Peter *** boost_1_40_0/boost/mpl/for_each.hpp Mon Aug 17 22:16:53 2009 --- boost_1_40_0.saved/boost/mpl/for_each.hpp Tue Sep 1 12:54:55 2009 *************** *** 71,78 **** // dwa 2002/9/10 -- make sure not to invoke undefined behavior // when we pass arg. ! value_initialized<arg> x; ! aux::unwrap(f, 0)(boost::get(x)); typedef typename mpl::next<Iterator>::type iter; for_each_impl<boost::is_same<iter,LastIterator>::value> --- 71,78 ---- // dwa 2002/9/10 -- make sure not to invoke undefined behavior // when we pass arg. ! //value_initialized<arg> x; ! aux::unwrap(f, 0)(arg()); typedef typename mpl::next<Iterator>::type iter; for_each_impl<boost::is_same<iter,LastIterator>::value>

5 10

Interest check: Boost.Mock
by Peter Bindels 26 Dec '09

26 Dec '09

Hi all, Over the past three-quarters of a year I've been working (with three friends) on a mocking framework for C++. In our vision, it would be a good complement to Boost.Test for testing classes separate from interfaces required - it would improve the ability to unit-test the classes that tie others together and that implement higher-level algorithms. It does this by creating an object that is "derived" from a given class at runtime, and replacing the functions with functions that redirect to verifying logic. The verifying logic uses basic structures to record expectations and to verify they happened. These ways of creating an object at runtime and modifying it are highly compiler dependant but remarkably portable - as it runs on at least 3 different compiler series (GCC, MSVC, EDG-based) and 5 platforms (Windows XP, Windows CE, Linux, QNX, bare platform), with few modifications. The library has been released under the name "Hippo Mocks" already. I'm interested in submitting it to Boost for three reasons. First of all, I believe that there may be obvious or very interesting optimizations or expansions I do not notice. Second, as Christian has elaborated on already, having the Boost tag on the project makes it more noticed and more used. As it has taken quite a bit of time from me already I would like people to use it. Third, Boost.Test allows testing code but does not support mocking. In the environment of unit testing, anything that is not a base library benefits from mocking by abstracting away details that are irrelevant and that will break your test unnecessarily. For Boost the main changes would be superficial in the naming and in using more default libraries instead of a new implementation. For Hippo Mocks I've decided to make no assumptions in anything over C++98 so there's a full Tuple implementation and so on. If there's an interest I'll spend the evening porting the code to qualify for the Boost coding norms and upload it to the vault (if I can - but that should be OK). I would like you to take a look at the code and tell me what you think of it. Thanks for your time. Kind regards, Peter Bindels

8 10

[TypeTraits] is it possible to add something to boost.type_traits?
by frederic.bron＠alcan.com 17 Dec '09

17 Dec '09

Dear boost implementers, TypeTraits is very useful, thanks you. However, recently, I needed something to know if a type is comparable (with operator<) and that was not in the library. Fortunately, somebody forwarded me an earlier post on the users list where I could find what I wanted. The implementation was inspired from boost/detail/is_incrementable.hpp I have written is_less_comparable, is_less_equal_comparable, is_greater_comparable... inspired from the same source and I wonder if it could be possible to add it to the library as I think it could be helpful for others. I give the source code below (if it is useful) but I am not able to make it fully general as it is in boost/type_traits. In particular, I do not understand all the macros that are used. Regards, F. Bron (See attached file: is_comparable.hpp) Avis : Ce message et toute pièce jointe sont la propriété d'Alcan et sont destinés seulement aux personnes ou à l'entité à qui le message est adressé. Si vous avez reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez le détruire et en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire du message, vous n'êtes pas autorisé à utiliser, à copier ou à divulguer le contenu du message ou ses pièces jointes en tout ou en partie. Notice: This message and any attachments are the property of Alcan and are intended solely for the named recipients or entity to whom this message is addressed. If you have received this message in error please inform the sender via e-mail and destroy the message. If you are not the intended recipient you are not allowed to use, copy or disclose the contents or attachments in whole or in part.

11 23

Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Boost.String.Convert
by Vladimir.Batov＠wrsa.com.au 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

I understand we'll never manage to please everyone. Apologies. For now I am settling on the boost::convert interface as I very much agree with the arguments Robert's put forward for it and I feel there is the least disagreement around this interface. Surely boost::convert() has issues of its own. However, I feel the path (convert::to_string->convert::to->convert) how I myself arrived to this logical (IMHO) conclusion seemed reasonable. More so, despite its subtle (to some) directionality the interface has proven to work (as it is essentially the same interface as for lexical_cast). You cannot deny that I made considerable sacrifices (my pets "string" namespace and "to/from" are gone, something I was ready to die :-) for yesterday...). I am hoping the others could make some concessions as well and we would settle on boost::convert()... for now. If some other issues pop up that we missed so far, we'll revisit the issue. It is because I would very much like to move forward and start looking at the functionality and implementation. Do you think it is possible or I am rushing things again? I somewhat cleaned up the implementation (removed to/from, etc.). However, before going forward I'd like to discuss one important thing that's been bugging me since Scott brought it up. Namely, all conversions are now implemented as discriminated functions like // string-to-type conversion template<class TypeOut, class StringIn> typename boost::enable_if_c< !is_string<TypeOut>::value && is_string<StringIn>::value, detail::from_string<StringIn, TypeOut> >::type convert(StringIn const& from_str, TypeOut const& default_value =TypeOut()) { return detail::from_string<StringIn, TypeOut>(from_str, default_value); } However, Scott mentioned that and I feel that might be cleaner if we could implement it as namespace boost { template<class TypeOut, class TypeIn, class Enable =void> class convert; } Then for every conversion we'll be able to encapsulate *complete* implementation in the respective specialization class. Like for string-to-type template< class TypeOut, class StringIn, typename boost::enable_if_c< !is_string<TypeOut>::value && is_string<StringIn>::value, void>::type> class convert { convert(StringIn const& from_str, TypeOut const& default_value =TypeOut()); }; The reason I like it is that it eliminates other support/intermediate classes (like something used-to-called boost::string::value<...> and detail::from_string) and we can do int i = convert(str, -1); // Nothing changed. a 'convert' instance created on the stack and converted to 'int'. convert<int, string> checked(str, -1); // named 'convert' is created. convert<int, string> checked = convert(str, -1); // the same but some might like this syntax better. if (checked.good()) success // we can check the success as ussed to with boost::string::value It feels that approach gives us considerably more room for expansion as some special conversions will be able to have methods only specific to that particular conversion. For this approach to work with algorithms we'll need class convert { static TypeOut apply(TypeIn const&); }; and then std::transform( ints.begin(), ints.end(), std::back_inserter(strings), convert<string, int>::apply); Thanks, Vladimir.

9 63

[thread] #2742 Why the at_thread_exit cleanup function is const?
by vicente.botet 25 Nov '09

25 Nov '09

Hi, Anthony, could you verify the patch and test I have attached to the ticket works for other platforms that cygwin? Thanks, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá

2 1

[move][container] Review Request (new versions of Boost.Move and Boost.Container in sandbox and vault)
by Ion Gaztañaga 17 Nov '09

17 Nov '09

Hi to all, I've just uploaded to boost sandbox... http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/move/) and Boost.Vault... http://www.boostpro.com/vault/index.php?action=downloadfile&filename=boost.… ...new versions of libraries Boost.Move and Boost.Container. Online documentation can be found here: Boost.Move http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/move/libs/move/doc/html/index.html Boost.Container http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/move/libs/container/doc/html/index.h… I would like to request a review for both libraries. Boost.Move is quite small (just one header). Boost.Container depends on Boost.Move and Boost.Intrusive so you must download also the post-1.40 version of Intrusive placed in the same package (Boost.Container uses new features from Intrusive not included in Boost 1.40). Just take fresh Boost 1.39 folder and overwrite it with package contents. ************************ What's new in Boost.Move: ************************ ->The library has been modified to support moving rvalues of copyable AND movable types, a limitation of the previous version. This changes where proposed by Klaus Triendl in this thread: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2009/06/153266.php The library has now new macros to declare copyable and movable types and movable only types. Old macros are still there for backwards compatibility (specially unordered library which was also ported to this move sandbox) but I expect to remove them if current approach is considered better. ->Updated documentation and tests. ************************ What's new in Boost.Container: ************************ -> Added tests and documentation -> Updated the library to the new Boost.Move macros * * * I've tested both libraries in Windows XP using the following compilers: Visual 7.1, Visual 8.0, Visual 9.0, Intel 10.0, Mingw-gcc 4.3 and Mingw-gcc 4.3 in C++0x mode. The library should work on any C++03 conforming compiler Best, Ion

19 95

Boost.Variant is not EqualityComparable
by brook＠biology.nmsu.edu 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

I just ran into the case that Boost Variant does not satisfy the EqualityComparable concept. While it provides operator==() and operator<() (and therefore is LessThanComparable), it does not provide operator!=(), which is required for the EqualityComparable concept. Is this by design or oversight? It seems reasonable to expect that a Boost Variant model this concept, but perhaps I am missing something. In case it is by oversight, the following patch seems to provide the missing operator. Cheers, Brook --- boost/variant/variant.hpp.orig 2009-05-13 21:21:59.000000000 -0600 +++ boost/variant/variant.hpp 2009-05-25 19:21:40.000000000 -0600 @@ -1681,6 +1681,8 @@ return rhs.apply_visitor(visitor); } + bool operator!=(const variant& rhs) const { return !(*this == rhs); } + bool operator<(const variant& rhs) const { //

6 7

proposal interval container; ITL moved to the boost sandbox
by Joachim Faulhaber 11 Nov '09

11 Nov '09

Dear boosters, after completion of a lot of boostification work I moved my Interval Template Library to the boost sandbox in the boost project centric form: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/browser/sandbox/itl itl boost itl [itl_xt] [validate] libs itl [itl_xt] [validate] I have split up the original library into three parts: (1) itl, (2) itl_xt and (3) validate. Core part 1 'ITL' contains all interval container class templates. Only this part will be prepared for a formal submission. Part 2 'itl_xt' contains extended parts of the original library that do not belong to the core interval container data structures and might be proposed for later extensions. Part 3 'validate' contains the sources for the law based test automaton 'LaBatea' that has been used for an automated check of the ITLs correctness. Parts 2 and 3 do not yet conform boost standards and naming conventions and are not yet intended as contributions to boost. On the core ITL-part I have done the following: + Removed all virtual functions via introduction of mixins + Integrated deeper into boost libraries replacing own code by e.g. boost::type_traits and boost::mpl + Minimized the class template interfaces by transforming member functions into non member function templates. + Made interval containers more interoperable by overloading operators and global function templates. + Wrote a test suite using boost unit test tools. Tested for boost-instance types boost::date_time and boost::rational + Provided jamfiles to build and run examples and tests. + All examples and tests have been compiled, linked and run successfully with msvc_9.0 and gcc_3.4.4(cygwin). Next I am going to write boost style html-documentation. >From the boost web page I don't see a clear recommendation for a preferable way of doing that. Handcoded? Generated with BoostBook? Is there a reference library that has an exemplary standard documentation? Cheers Joachim

3 4

Time for another bug sprint (after 1.41 ships)?
by Marshall Clow 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Earlier this year, we had a "bug sprint", where many people focused on fixing bugs in Boost. We managed to get the # of open tickets down from 800 to about 720. As of today, there are 820 open tickets in Trac. Is it time to focus on swotting bugs again? 1.41 is scheduled for release on 1-November; that's six weeks from yesterday. How about a bug sprint starting on 14-November, finishing on 22- November? That's two weekends - and finishes up before the American Thanksgiving holiday. -- Marshall P.S. This doesn't mean that people have to wait until November to fix bugs ;-) ;-)

12 25

[integer] Compilation failed in Visual Studio
by Adam Badura 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Following simple program: #include <boost/integer_fwd.hpp> int main() { return 0; } does not compile in Visual Studio 2008 with Boost 1.40.0. Compilation errors are following: 1>d:\libraries\boost_1_40_0\boost\integer_fwd.hpp(70) : error C2039: 'long_long_type' : is not a member of 'boost' 1>d:\libraries\boost_1_40_0\boost\integer_fwd.hpp(70) : error C2065: 'long_long_type' : undeclared identifier 1>d:\libraries\boost_1_40_0\boost\integer_fwd.hpp(70) : error C2913: explicit specialization; 'boost::integer_traits' is not a specialization of a class template 1>d:\libraries\boost_1_40_0\boost\integer_fwd.hpp(73) : error C2913: explicit specialization; 'boost::integer_traits' is not a specialization of a class template Adam Badura

6 9

[BGL] Multithread problem inserting edges and exploring the same graph
by Cosimo Calabrese 21 Oct '09

21 Oct '09

Hi to all, I've a problem on BGL. My environment is WinXP, Visual Studio 2005, Boost 1.37. I'm trying to use BGL in the following way. I've a single graph in my application, that is an adjacency_list< vecS, vecS, ... >, and I've 2 kind of threads that work on the graph: - some "Explorer" threads, that executes a Dijkstra's algorithm repeatedly; - some "Integrator" thread, that call the add_edge() function repeatedly. The program often crashes, because it cannot dereference some graph elements, some auto_ptr... The crash isn't sistematic, so I think there's a concurrency problem. I think that the problem is in the use of the vectors in the implementation of the graph. In general, if I've an iterator 'it' that point on an vector's element A, and I insert another element B before A, then the iterator is now invalid. I suppose that it happens something of similar in the graph. If I read the out-edge list of a vertex at the same time that I add another out-edge to the same vertex, the reading may be inconsistent. So I've tried with an adjacency_list< listS, vecS, ... >, because if I add an element to a list, the previous reference are still valid, but I've experienced the same problem again. If what I've said is correct, then I think that with an adjacency_matrix I will not have problems, but I've approximately 5 millions of vertices, and the graph is sparse. I think that is a waste of memory. And what about the exploring time? Another question: if I launch *only* a set of Explorer thread, it seems that there aren't problems with EdgeList = listS and EdgeList = vecS too. Can someone confirm to me that the exploring algorithms, like Dijkstra, don't modify the graph structure? Are they read-only algorithms? Can I safely launch multiple exploration threads simultaneously? Can someone help me? Many thanks in advance, Cosimo Calabrese.

5 24

[utility] auto_buffer v2
by Thorsten Ottosen 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Dear All, Hereby an updated class. Thanks to all who contributed with comments to the first try. I have made the following changes: 1. push_back() overloads are now growing 2. added swap() (boy, was this nasty to implement). I assume the allocator can be wapped without throwing. How do other people copy with this problem? 3. added copy-constructor + copy-assignment 4. made the min capacity equal to N, the number of elements in the stack buffer 5. the size of the internal buffer is now controlled via two policies: template< unsigned N > struct store_n_objects; template< unsigned N > struct store_n_bytes; the default is store_n_objects<256>. The reason is that we don't want the capacity to change just because we compile on a different platform. 6. added comparison operators Comments most welcome! best regards -Thorsten

4 7

[rdb] 0.0.09
by Jean-Louis Leroy 04 Oct '09

04 Oct '09

In this version : * EXISTS * consistency check in INSERT...SELECT * DISTINCT, ALL * transactions The transaction stuff is pellicular. It simply maps to vendor calls. I am hesitating a bit, either make a common interface for the most common operations (like execute) directly in each backend (aside with vendor-specifc calls) or put them in a separate wrapper or even decide that it's not in the scope. There's more redesign in the select from which I think I can get an elegant implementation of vendor-specific features (like LIMIT). The idea is to pass all the data in a fusion map, allowing vendor specific parts of the statement to slip their own data inside it. In fact this also is how DISTINCT works. I dropped the composition of lists via chained calls to operator (). It's all preprocessor-based now. The () chain system was limited by FUSION_MAX_VECTOR_SIZE anyway. I have installed MySQL on my computer. I am still accessing it via ODBC but I'll probably start the native support soon. Yesterday I tried to upload and just when I pushed the upload button the vault server crashed. I suspect that it was my upload that triggered it. J-L

6 15

[Fusion] port to c++0x
by Christopher Schmidt 04 Oct '09

04 Oct '09

I participated in Google's 'Summer of Code' for Boost this year. My project was to port Boost.Fusion to c++0x. The program is over now and I would like to give you a short report on my work and put my code up for comments. In a nutshell, there is rvalue support, native variadic templates are used if possible and the public classes and (meta-) functions are guarded by a set of static asserts that detect most invalid (template) arguments. I also added certain new functionality to provide an easier, faster and more intuitive programming interface. My implementation is pretty much backwards compatible and all test cases pass on gcc 3.4/4.4 and vc 9. Here is a short overview of the most striking changes besides the implementation of raw c++0x support. I removed the deque container and the extension-classes. The deque container is undocumented and, in my opinion, does not go well with the other container due to its intrinsic extension mechanism. There also should not be a performance gain compared to a regular fusion::joint_view in combination with two fusion::vector. The extension classes are pretty much Boost.Proto specific. At the moment they seem to be out of place, especially as they are undocumented, unmaintained and not even part of the regular file structure. I would like to see them either fully documented (with the underlying concept of segmented sequences) or in the detail namespace of Boost.Proto. I added support for associative iterators. An associative forward sequence shall provide an iterator type which implements the extension backend of the intrinsic (meta-)functions fusion::result_of::value_of_data, fusion::deref_data and fusion::result_of::key_of. This has the advantage that all view classes, even fusion::iterator_range, are able to adapt the underlying sequence's associative-ness. fusion::transform_view, as a special case, got an additional template parameter. This parameter specifies whether the view should model either the forward concept only or the associative and the forward concept. This design breaks consistency with Boost.MPL. Unfortunately these changes are crucial and I would rather risk this break with Boost.MPL than missing that important feature. Using the old implementation, there is no way to avoid explicitly converting from a view back to an associative sequence to preserve the associative-ness. This leads to a nasty runtime overhead due to evaluation of every element of the view and copy-/move-constructing it. Besides, other changes include: -If the compiler supports rvalue references, all fusion container have a template constructor (taking either const lvalue or 'templated' rvalue references). -If the compiler supports variadic templates, fusion::cons, fusion::pair and fusion::single_view have a variadic template constructor (taking either const lvalue or 'templated' rvalue references) that allows emplace construction. -The view classes adapt the full category of their underlying sequences. As mentioned above, the associative-ness is preserved, but also, if possible, the random-access or bidirectional trait. -The result_of::-metafunctions accept r- and lvalue references arguments. If an argument is not reference-qualified, it will be considered to be an lvalue reference. All existing extension implementations must be changed to adapt this new behaviour. -The algorithm functions now also take (and correctly forward) non-const reference arguments. -Fusion iterators (with reference compatible sequence types and a very same index) and views (with reference compatible sequence types) have a working operator= that correctly reassigns the underlying sequence references. -Fusion now also adapts MPL iterators. If, and only if, the <boost/fusion/adapted/mpl.hpp>-header is included, mpl sequences and iterators are recognized as fusion sequences and iterators. -There are new headers to adapt std::(tr1::)array or std::(tr1::)tuple. The overall compile-time performance of my code is satisfying. Compiling a compilation unit that includes all possible fusion headers takes on gcc 4.4 slightly more time than the official fusion implementation. If native variadic templates are present, the compilation is a lot faster (usually up to 3 to 6 times), regardless of the value of FUSION_MAX_xxx_SIZE. The compile-time performance of actual fusion code is mixed. The intrinsic container and iterator (meta-)functions compile a little bit slower compared to the official fusion implementation. This is due to explicit removal of the references on the arguments of all result_of::metafunctions and some additional abstraction layer. If the compiler support rvalue references, there has to be a rather ugly and slow type evaluation/transformation to avoid issues with rvalue references on non-array, non-class types (see /support/internal/ref.hpp and 8.5.3p5 of the current c++0x draft for more details). On the other hand, I added several optimizations (such as result preevaluation), and, if variadic templates are present, the actual instantiation of fusion containers is a lot faster. All in all, the compile-time performance is a little bit worse if c++0x features are not present. If c++0x features are present, the code should compile a little bit faster in most cases. For example, the lambda example of the Boost.Proto documentation, which internally heavily relies on Boost.Fusion, takes on my machine 2.6 seconds to compile with the 'old' fusion on gcc 4.4, 3 seconds with my port without -std=c++0x, and 2.1 seconds with c++0x features being present. The overall performance might be even better once Boost.MPL adapts native variadic templates and the compiler supports template aliases. There have been tons of other changes, mostly bugfixes, optimizations (in terms of compile time of course) and removals of redundancy. Whenever I had the choice, I tried to prefer clean, redundancy-free instead of heavily optimized code. The overall performance loss is not noticeable though, and most compile-time optimizations that go beyond the as-little-template-instantiations-as-possible paradigm are pretty much compiler dependent anyway. There is still some work to do. I did not add c++0x-specific test cases and there are several parts of the documentation which need to be updated. By the way, are there any official guidelines for documenting c++03/c++0x-specific differences? For now, I would like to hold off on implementing these changes until Boost.TypeTraits adapts c++0x. Right now I implemented missing or incorrectly behaving trait functions in the fusion::detail-namespace. I would rather like to use the official ones, at least in the documentation and in the test cases. Besides that, I think my implementation is trunk-ready. If there are no objections, I would like to finish the outstanding work as soon as possible, and then merge my code with the trunk. Of course I will provide long-term support for the project. In fact, I would love to become an official fusion maintainer. You can find the code in the boost sandbox (/sandbox/SOC/2009/fusion). If you test the code with a compiler that has decltype support, please use the HEAD of the trunk rather than the official 1.40 distribution package to compile your code. Best regards Christopher

6 17