October 2012 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[contract] first attempt to N3351 concepts
by Lorenzo Caminiti 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hello all, I made a first attempt to sketch how N3351-like concepts will look into Boost.Contract (just for the find algorithm and its concepts for now): http://contractpp.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/contractpp/branches/stl_concep… This code doesn't compile quite yet but I played with its bits and pieces enough to conclude that it should be implementable as listed. It will take quite a bit of time and effort to implement this... Please tell me what you think now so I don't waste time … [View More]

4 9

[config] explicit call of operator templates / msvc bug workaround
by Stefan Strasser 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hi, is there already a macro in Boost.Config that allows you to insert the "template" keyword in the following code for those compilers that require it? struct functor{ template<class T> void operator()(); }; template<class F> void g(F f){ f.template operator()<int>(); //(1) works with GCC and comeau f.operator()<int>(); //(2) works with MSVC } this apparently only applies to operator calls. MSVC accepts both (1) and (2) for regular functions. (instantiating … [View More]

6 10

[1.52] error on WinCE
by Jochen Wilhelmy 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hi! on WinCE I get errors of this type: boost/smart_ptr/detail/sp_counted_base_w32.hpp(73) : error C3861: 'InterlockedIncrement': identifier not found BOOST_USE_WINDOWS_H is not defined _WIN32_WCE is 0x600 therefore there is only _InterlockedIncrement (with leading underscore) in boost/detail/interlocked.hpp -Jochen

2 1

[math] build failure with BOOST_MATH_NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH_FUNCTIONS
by Kim Barrett 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

I'm attempting to upgrade from boost 1.49 to boost 1.52 beta1, and have run into a problem building the math libraries. It seems that defining BOOST_MATH_NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH_FUNCTIONS no longer works, leading to build failures if it is defined. This worked in boost 1.49, where I was defining it in $BOOST_ROOT/boost/math/tools/user.hpp as described in the comments therein. I've filed a ticket for this problem: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7485

2 1

[1.52] release branch reopened for bug fixes ONLY
by Eric Niebler 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Now that we have released the first beta, the release branch is open for bug fixes. Only bug fixes, please.[*] No new features. No new libraries. You do not need a release manager's approval to merge a bug fix. The earlier you can merge your bug fixes, the better. The branch will close again for final release preparations on Oct 29. As usual, you can see the release calendar here: http://www.boost.org/development/index.html [*] Changes to documentation are always allowed. -- Eric Niebler … [View More]

1 0

[config] Handle upcoming XP-target toolset of VC11
by Lars Viklund 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Hi list. Microsoft are testing their update system for Visual Studio 2012 [1], which includes a v110_xp toolset [2] for "restoring" support for building software that may run on Windows XP. In essence, it uses a repurposed Windows 7 SDK with the VS 2012 compiler, instead of the Windows 8 SDK used in the normal v110 toolset. What implications do you think this has for Boost.Config and all the things predicated on MSC_VER, as this decorrelates the compiler version from the Windows SDK it uses. … [View More]

3 2

[GIL] Small docs update suggestion on cached_location_t
by Mateusz Loskot 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Hi, I've stumbled upon old thread on "locator and cached_location_t" [1] There are some interesting explanations which I believe is worth to add to Boost.GIL docs. Particularly, I believe the following Lubomir's clarification should be added as first paragraph documenting cached location: "Cached location is meant to be used as a quick way to get to neighborhood pixels if you need to read or write a neighboring location frequently relative to a given locator." Currently, notion of cached … [View More]

2 1

[graph] msvc compile failure with filtered_graph and dijkstra
by Jürgen Hunold 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Hi, some of our old graph algorithm seems to have broken using msvc with 1.51. The failure can be reproduced with the attached testcase on trunk and 1.51. The error starts with E:\Home\hunold\src\devel\boost\boost/graph/properties.hpp(222) : error C2039: 'type' : is not a member of 'boost::vertex_property_type<G>' which point in the direction of the last changes to properties.hpp. The test code break with msvc-9.0 (full error included) and msvc-11.0. Everything compiles with gcc-4.… [View More]

2 5

[contract] concept error messages
by Lorenzo Caminiti 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Hello all, Main purposes of concepts are to (a) document the type requirements and (b) generate useful error messages when a type does not met the requirements. I'd like to discuss how the ideal error messages should look like when a given type does not model the specified concepts. One point of discussion is: In case a type doesn't model a concept, should the compiler generate an hard error or the function/class template should simply be removed from the overload/specialization set? For … [View More]example, consider: template< typename T> requires EqualityComparable<T> bool equal ( T a, T b ) // #1 { return a == b; // #3 } ... struct x { explicit x(char const*); }; x abc("abc"); equal(abc, abc); // #2 Let's assume we want an hard error then I think ideally the compiler should generate two errors: 1) An error at line #1 indicating that the concept EqualityComparable<T> is not modeled. Ideally this error will read: line #1: failed to model concept EqualityComparable<T> 2) An error at line #2 indicating that the call equal(abc, abc) cannot be resolved. Ideally this error will read: line #2: no matching call for function equal 3) Note that no error should be generated from within the equal function implementation (line #3, etc) because the concept is not modeled so the function definition should not be compiled. Now, this is what I was able to actually implement. === Option A) Using enable_if === template< typename T > typename std::enable_if< AlwaysTrue<T>::value && contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>::value, bool>::type equal1 ( T const& a, T const& b ) { return a == b; } ... equal1(abc, abc); // 08.cpp:44 08.cpp:44:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal1' equal1(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ [...] This error is not ideal because it only satisfies 2) and 3) but not 1). It does not give information about which concept was not modeled -- you don't see EqualityComparable or "concept failed" anywhere in the error. (Clang actually mentions EqualityComparable in a "note" following the error (see below) but that's not a message that can be relied on across different compilers.) Users can use this approach if they don't want an hard error but they only want to remove the function from the overload set on concept failure. === Option B) Using concept_check === template< typename T > typename contract::concept_check< AlwaysTrue<T>::value, contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>::value, bool>::type equal2 ( T const& a, T const& b ) { return a == b; } ... equal2(abc, abc); // 08.cpp:45 In file included from 08.cpp:5: include/contract/concept_check.hpp:61:5: error: static_assert failed "model concept number 2" static_assert(Concept2, "model concept number 2"); ^ ~~~~~~~~ [...] 08.cpp:45:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal2' equal2(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ This also satisfies 2) and 3) however it only partially satisfies 1). The error mentions the number of the concept "2" but not its name EqualityComparable (that's probably OK) but the error line number refers to the file implementing concept_check and not to the point of declaration of equal2. In other words, the error for 1) does not indicate line #1 (that's probably acceptable but not ideal). Note that the error for 1) is generate using a static_assert so it is portable. === Option C) Using CONCEPT_CHECK macro === CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK( // 08.cpp:26 (template< typename T >), (AlwaysTrue<T>) (contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>), bool, equal3 ) ( T const& a, T const& b ) { return a == b; } ... equal3(abc, abc); // 08.cpp:45 08.cpp:26:1: error: static_assert failed "model concept number 2: contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>" CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK( ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [...] 08.cpp:46:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal3' equal3(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ [...] These errors satisfy all 1), 2), and 3) however the use of macros makes clang generate lots of "notes" to backtrace the macro expansion (there's probably a way to disable these notes, plus they are not actual errors and can be ignored). Note that the concept name EqualityComparable appears in the static assertion error message so it is guaranteed to be printed portably among compilers. I'm thinking that these are all valid ways to check concepts. Eventually, Boost.Contract macros will use B) (given that the lib already uses macros to declare functions). However, if users want to use Boost.Contract macros to declare a concept but they want to use enable_if or contract::concept_check to check it, they can do so (in case they don't want to use the lib macros to declare their functions). Complete error messages (including "notes"): 08.cpp:44:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal1' equal1(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ 08.cpp:12:5: note: candidate template ignored: disabled by 'enable_if' [with T = x] AlwaysTrue<T>::value && contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>::value, ^ In file included from 08.cpp:5: include/contract/concept_check.hpp:61:5: error: static_assert failed "model concept number 2" static_assert(Concept2, "model concept number 2"); ^ ~~~~~~~~ 08.cpp:19:20: note: in instantiation of template class 'contract::concept_check<true, false, bool>' requested here typename contract::concept_check< ^ 08.cpp:21:13: note: while substituting deduced template arguments into function template 'equal2' [with T = x] bool>::type equal2 ( T const& a, T const& b ) ^ 08.cpp:45:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal2' equal2(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ 08.cpp:21:13: note: candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with T = x] bool>::type equal2 ( T const& a, T const& b ) ^ 08.cpp:26:1: error: static_assert failed "model concept number 2: contract::std::EqualityComparable<T>" CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK( ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:40:33: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK' BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK_ASSERT_, ~, concepts) \ ^ ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:27:69: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I(macro, data, seq) BOOST_PP_FOR((macro, data, seq (nil), 0), BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_P, BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_O, BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M) ^ ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/repetition/detail/for.hpp:22:78: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_FOR_1' # define BOOST_PP_FOR_1(s, p, o, m) BOOST_PP_FOR_1_C(BOOST_PP_BOOL(p(2, s)), s, p, o, m) ^ note: (skipping 7 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace-limit=0 to see all) ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:45:80: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_IM' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_IM(r, im) BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, im) ^ ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/for_each_i.hpp:50:62: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOR_EACH_I_M_I(r, macro, data, seq, i) macro(r, data, i, BOOST_PP_SEQ_HEAD(seq)) ^ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:23:5: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK_ASSERT_' static_assert(CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK_COND_(i), "model concept number " \ ^ 08.cpp:26:1: note: in instantiation of template class 'contractXconceptXcheckXequal3X30<true, false>' requested here CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK( ^ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:50:14: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK' typename CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK_CLASS_(func_name)< \ ^ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:11:23: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK_CLASS_' BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT((contractXconceptXcheckX)(func_name)(X)(__LINE__)) ^ ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/cat.hpp:30:7: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT' )(seq) \ ^ note: (skipping 18 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace-limit=0 to see all) ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/cat.hpp:35:37: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT_O_I' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_CAT_O_I(a, b) a ## b ^ <scratch space>:91:1: note: expanded from macro 'contractXconceptXcheckXequal3X' contractXconceptXcheckXequal3X30 ^ ../../../boost_1_50_0.cyg/boost/preprocessor/seq/fold_left.hpp:295:51: note: expanded from macro 'BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOLD_LEFT_F' # define BOOST_PP_SEQ_FOLD_LEFT_F(op, st, ss, sz) st ^ 08.cpp:29:11: note: while substituting deduced template arguments into function template 'equal3' [with T = x] bool, equal3 ^ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:53:5: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK' func_name ^ 08.cpp:46:5: error: no matching function for call to 'equal3' equal3(abc, abc); ^~~~~~ 08.cpp:29:11: note: candidate template ignored: substitution failure [with T = x] bool, equal3 ^ include/contract/concept_check.hpp:53:5: note: expanded from macro 'CONTRACT_CONCEPT_CHECK' func_name ^ 5 errors generated. --Lorenzo [View Less]

5 20

[result_of] BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE in a C++03 mode with libc++
by Michel Morin 08 Oct '12

08 Oct '12

This is just a small note related to boost::result_of. When BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE is defined, boost::result_of tries to use decltype-based implementation (regardless of the compiler's decltype support). Surprisingly, in a C++03 mode, libc++ defines `decltype` using `__typeof__`: Bug 12488 (WONTFIX): decltype can be used in C++03 with no errors, no warnings http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12488 So, when used with libc++, boost::result_of can be used with … [View More]

2 3