June 2014 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[testing] Dissapearing regression results
by Adam Wulkiewicz 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Hi, I noticed that for the latest runs the tests of Geometry are missing. Surprisingly not all, 2 tests for geometry/index sublib are present. Initially I thought that it may be caused by the recent modularization but I didn't noticed any problems in any of the libraries I checked randomly. Besides, I made some changes in Geometry recently, which AFAIU shouldn't cause any problems, but I guess you may never know. What I changed was: - creation of some files - moving of some files - adding a Jamfile in a directory different than test directories (doc/src/docutils/tools/support_status) - uncommenting tests in file extensions/test/nsphere/Jamfile.v2 So I decided to try running the tests by myself. I tried: 1. Windows + GitBash -> a lot of "can't find xxx file" errors (b2 headers didn't work properly) 2. Windows + GitBash with admin rights -> exactly what can be seen in the tests, bjam.log shows that only 2 tests from Geometry was choosen for testing 3. Windows + cmd with admin rights -> everything is ok (in case you wanted to check it - runner Test2) 4. Linux -> also everything is ok (runner Test) Is it possible that I was lucky and something was fixed yesterday evening (between 2nd and 3rd attempt)? Might my changes cause some problems? E.g. because of some state kept by the runners? In Geometry we have Jamfiles not only in test and xxx/test directories but also in examples, docs and in the main module directory. May this cause some problems? At least for me, on Windows b2 headers now requires admin rights. Otherwise the links just aren't created. Is it because of the replacing hardlinks with symlinks? Another thing is that symlinks aren't properly created for all libraries. AFAIR previously something like this happened after the addition of sublibs file. I don't remember exactly but it was probably caused by the same names of the older tests and newer ones from different directories, so not the same issue? Is there something we could do about it? Regards, Adam

3 9

- Request to join the community maintenance team
by Neil Groves 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Hi! Please may I would like to join all the cool kids in the community maintenance team?! I would like to assist on various maintenance issues and with the modularisation effort. I think this requires broader write access than I have at the moment as a maintainer of Boost.Range. It seems to me that joining the community maintenance team will both allow me to help more with general maintenance and assist with modularisation. If the correct procedure is to make different requests, then please let me know. Regards, Neil Groves

2 1

[pimpl] Boost.Pimpl review canceled
by Glen Fernandes 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi everyone, Vladimir has elected to withdraw Boost.Pimpl submission and cancel the formal review. On behalf of Vladimir, thank you for the feedback provided in response to the pre-view announcement mail: it was especially useful to him. Best, Glen

1 0

[Modularization] About adding sub-modules?
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, some libraries can be seen as a set of sub-modules, as it is Math, Numeric or Thread. Could we add these sub-modules ? * Chrono/Stopwatches * Thread/Executors * Detail/WinApi Best, Vicente

4 13

Re: [boost] [Modularization] new Memory module
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

I forget to sent this message to the boost ML. Le 09/06/14 15:18, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit : > Le 09/06/14 12:17, Ion Gaztañaga a écrit : >> El 09/06/2014 10:11, Vicente J. Botet Escriba escribió: >>> Le 04/06/14 13:27, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit : >>>> |What about creating a Memory module containing| most of the things >>>> the standard defines in <memory> except maybe what is already in >>>> SmartPptr, e.g. >>>> >>>> ||* boost/interprocess/allocators/*|| >>>> |* boost/intrusive/pointer_traits.hpp >>>> | >>> Any comments on this new module? Ion? >> >> Thanks for the ping, I'm not closely following modularization threads. >> >> Interprocess allocators are only usable by Interprocess users, I >> don't think they should be outside. > > Sorry, I wanted to say container| > > <boost/container/allocator_traits.hpp>|| > <boost/container/scoped_allocator.hpp>||| > > >> intrusive::pointer_traits is usable from other libraries. Container >> uses it extensively, but Container heavily depends on Intrusive. I >> don't know if other libraries use it. > > Boost.Thread uses allocators for future<T>. >> >> We also have a portable allocator_traits implementation in >> Boost.Container that might be reusable by other boost containers. We >> need to see real use cases to see if this class makes sense in >> Boost.Memory or its place should be Container. > I'm for Memory as it is in the standard. See my use case for future<T> >> >> For Boost 1.56 we'll have new allocators in Boost.Container, and >> those take advantage of Boost.Container internals to offer >> reallocation, burst allocation, etc. They could be usable by other >> Boost containers, but they are still experimental and unless there is >> a strong need for that, I would not move them to a new module now. >> >> pointer_traits offers extensions not found in std::pointer_traits >> (like pointer casting). We need to to carefully think about this >> (Boost.Intrusive needs to make some conversions not covered by >> std::pointer_traits). >> >> In any case, if reusable, I would make a new library (with >> documentation and test cases), not only a new git module. >> > Agreed. >> So my opinion is: Don't move interprocess allocators, let's see if a >> strong need arises for a common pointer_traits/allocator_traits and >> we'll think about solutions. >> > We don't move nothing we can not do either because we are the owners > or because these are libraries managed by the community maintenance team. > > Please, take the time you need about this new module/library that > could contain things similar to the ones found in <memory> except the > smart pointer part. > > Best, > Vicente

2 1

[ublas] Mass test failures on msvc12 and other on all msvc versions
by Adam Wulkiewicz 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, Nearly all tests fails for msvc12 because of the use of constexpr keyword. Could this be fixed? I prepared a pull request nearly a month ago: https://github.com/boostorg/ublas/pull/5 Btw, in those tests failing for all MSVC versions an assertion failure is reported by the STL: map/set iterators incompatible. Assertion failures should be visible in the regression results, shouldn't they? At least in the file test_inplace_solve.cpp (of course with -DUSE_MAPPED_VECTOR_OF_MAPPED_VECTOR) this assertion failure is caused by the matrix_sparse.hpp line 2002: return it_ == it.it_; Which is called by: triangular.hpp line 1328 matrix_expression.hpp line 1598 iterator.hpp line 185 ... test_inplace_solve.cpp line 72 I hope that helps. Do you plan to release the version of uBlas from develop in 1.56? Regards, Adam

4 4

[modularization] proposal and poll
by Julian Gonggrijp 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Dear Boost mailing list members, I would like to revive the topic of Boost inter-library dependencies, suggest two global changes to Boost and ask whether you agree with the course of action I propose. RATIONALE Boost recently transitioned from a monolithic SVN repository to a "modular" Git repository. One of the potential benefits of this new structure is that it may allow users to copy much less of Boost when they need only a small part of it. I believe that two additional, evolutionary changes are needed to truly unlock that benefit. The currently-standard way to use the new Git repository is to recursively clone the super-project and all its submodules, one for each of the >100 libraries. In order to use Boost in a truly modular way, a developer would rather just clone only the libraries she needs (including dependencies). Unfortunately, there is currently no feasible way to do that [see also 1]: - Manually: this is cumbersome and generally hard because there are many (undocumented) interdependencies between Boost libraries. - Automatically: as far as I know Ryppl is the only existing attempt at providing automated dependency handling for Boost, but it is a very ambitious project that attempts to do much more and it is currently neither finished nor being actively developed. I think there could be a less ambitious but faster way to provide automated dependency handling. It would take no more than some static configuration, to list for each library what other Boost libraries it depends on, combined with a simple script that automatically traverses the dependency graph and clones just the necessary submodules. This script may then be hooked into the bootstrap script. I think I could write the dependency handler, and I would be willing to, though I can't currently provide any indication of when I would be able to start. However, even if we had an automated way to handle dependencies, that would not be a sufficient solution to true modularity. As has been discussed before, the interdependencies between Boost libraries are currently so strong, that even using a single header file may likely require the user to copy a substantial portion of Boost [2]. This is especially the case because there are many cyclical dependencies [3, 4]. Stephen Kelly investigated how the interdependencies between Boost libraries could be reduced, especially the cyclical dependencies. He concluded that most cyclical dependencies could be eliminated and that the dependency graph could be simplified substantially overall. He also described concrete ways to achieve this. [3 and onwards] I believe it would still be worthwhile to reduce interdependencies between Boost libraries in the way Stephen proposed, or with a very similar approach. Stephen told me he is willing to re-analyze the dependencies as many times as needed as he did before and to make recommendations. Together with an automated way to handle dependencies, this should enable users to install only a small portion of Boost if that is all they need. It will also make the Boost super- project more flexible overall. PROPOSAL The following (evolutionary) global changes to Boost should be planned and given priority over any other proposals [e.g. 5], in the following order: 1. Reduction of dependencies between Boost libraries. 2. Simple but effective automation of dependency handling. POLL I think it may be easier for the steering committee to justify any decision on this proposal, if they have hard statistics about the amount of support it receives. Therefore, I invite every opinionated person reading this to reply with a vote, either in favour of the proposal or against it. I invite you to do this even if you do not feel the need or find the time to provide arguments for your position. You can later re-vote if you change your mind. I will count the votes, and when there are more than 30 I will start posting the statistics occasionally. Votes are public so everyone can verify my data when necessary. Anyone, including the steering committee, can then use the numbers however they choose. Thanks in advance, -Julian ____________ [1] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/05/213115.php [2] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207379.php [3] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207384.php [4] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/207422.php [5] http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2014/05/213229.php

15 49

[1.56.0] Heads up: One week to cutoff for new libraries and breaking changes
by Beman Dawes 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

As a practical matter, I'd also like to see the dependency reduction effort wind down for a while so more eyes can shift to finding and fixing master regression test errors. Thanks, --Beman

2 1

detail/interlocked.hpp -> winapi?
by Peter Dimov 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

The window for having fun with moving files around is closing quickly, so if detail/interlocked.hpp is going to be moved to winapi, now is the time. It makes atomic depend on detail, which doesn't really matter at the moment, but could become relevant at some later date. C:\Projects\boost-git\boost>%boostdep% boost/detail/interlocked.hpp Inclusion report for <boost/detail/interlocked.hpp> (in module detail): from atomic: <boost/atomic/detail/interlocked.hpp> from interprocess: <boost/interprocess/detail/win32_api.hpp> from log: <boost/log/detail/spin_mutex.hpp> from thread: <boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp> <boost/thread/win32/interlocked_read.hpp> <boost/thread/win32/once.hpp> <boost/thread/win32/shared_mutex.hpp> <boost/thread/win32/thread_primitives.hpp>

3 9

[type_traits] Proposal: same_xxx
by Adam Wulkiewicz 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, Recently I found some use for a tool adding const to a type if some other type is const. My use case was something like this: typename const_conformant < Range, typename boost::range_value<Range>::type >::type ... I'm guessing that such use cases are quite common, not only for const but also other qualifiers. Do you think that a family of traits adding or removing qualifiers based on the qualifiers of some other type could be a useful addon to the TypeTraits? E.g.: same_const<BaseT, T> same_cv<BaseT, T> same_pointer<BaseT, T> same_reference<BaseT, T> same_rvalue_reference<BaseT, T> same_volatile<BaseT, T> same_extents<BaseT, T> //etc. Regards, Adam

4 5