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

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

Let's not forget the release
by John Maddock 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

The discussion on reducing dependencies is great, but folks, we do need to produce a release soon, or else it'll be back to bad old days of one release a year (if you're lucky). Just saying... John.

10 15

[atomic]
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, there is a regression on Boost.Atomic on a lot of compilers. See regression test on Boost.Thread http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/thread.html synchronized_value__default_ctor_p <https://github.com/boostorg/thread/blob/develop/test/sync/mutual_exclusion/…> Please, could Time or Ardrey take care of this issue? Best, Vicente Test output: jasonr-Ubuntu13.10-gcc - thread - synchronized_value__default_ctor_p / gcc-4.8.1 Rev cfaf6902e696a50a8f8c81510e676aaa547c7706 / Sun, 08 Jun 2014 00:02:00 +0000 Compile [2014-06-08 04:29:08 UTC]: fail "g++-4.8" -ftemplate-depth-128 -O0 -fno-inline -Wall -pedantic -g -pthread -fPIC -Wextra -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wunused-function -pedantic -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_CHRONO_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_NO_DEPRECATED -DBOOST_THREAD_BUILD_DLL=1 -DBOOST_THREAD_POSIX -DBOOST_THREAD_THROW_IF_PRECONDITION_NOT_SATISFIED -DBOOST_THREAD_USE_DLL=1 -I".." -c -o "/hd/boosttest_new/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/synchronized_value__default_ctor_p.test/gcc-4.8.1/debug/threading-multi/sync/mutual_exclusion/synchronized_value/default_ctor_pass.o" "../libs/thread/test/sync/mutual_exclusion/synchronized_value/default_ctor_pass.cpp" In file included from ../boost/atomic/detail/atomic_template.hpp:25:0, from ../boost/atomic/atomic.hpp:22, from ../boost/atomic.hpp:12, from ../boost/thread/testable_mutex.hpp:14, from ../libs/thread/test/sync/mutual_exclusion/synchronized_value/default_ctor_pass.cpp:15: ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp: In instantiation of ???union boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = boost::thread::id; From = long unsigned int]::<anonymous>???: ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp:36:5: required from ???To boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = boost::thread::id; From = long unsigned int]??? ../boost/atomic/detail/atomic_template.hpp:355:92: required from ???boost::atomics::detail::base_atomic<T, void>::value_type boost::atomics::detail::base_atomic<T, void>::load(boost::memory_order) const volatile [with T = boost::thread::id; boost::atomics::detail::base_atomic<T, void>::value_type = boost::thread::id]??? ../boost/atomic/detail/atomic_template.hpp:697:27: required from ???boost::atomics::atomic<T>::operator boost::atomics::atomic<T>::value_type() const volatile [with T = boost::thread::id; boost::atomics::atomic<T>::value_type = boost::thread::id]??? ../boost/thread/testable_mutex.hpp:113:30: required from ???bool boost::testable_mutex<Lockable>::is_locked() const [with Lockable = boost::mutex]??? ../libs/thread/test/sync/mutual_exclusion/synchronized_value/default_ctor_pass.cpp:24:7: required from here ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp:34:12: error: member ???boost::thread::id boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = boost::thread::id; From = long unsigned int]::<anonymous union>::as_to??? with constructor not allowed in union To as_to; ^ ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp:34:12: note: unrestricted unions only available with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11 ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp: In instantiation of ???union boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = long unsigned int; From = boost::thread::id]::<anonymous>???: ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp:36:5: required from ???To boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = long unsigned int; From = boost::thread::id]??? ../boost/atomic/detail/atomic_template.hpp:337:137: required from ???boost::atomics::detail::base_atomic<T, void>::base_atomic(const value_type&) [with T = boost::thread::id; boost::atomics::detail::base_atomic<T, void>::value_type = boost::thread::id]??? ../boost/atomic/detail/atomic_template.hpp:687:101: required from ???boost::atomics::atomic<T>::atomic(boost::atomics::atomic<T>::value_arg_type) [with T = boost::thread::id; boost::atomics::atomic<T>::value_arg_type = const boost::thread::id&]??? ../boost/thread/testable_mutex.hpp:47:40: required from ???boost::testable_mutex<Lockable>::testable_mutex() [with Lockable = boost::mutex]??? ../boost/thread/synchronized_value.hpp:431:14: required from ???boost::synchronized_value<T, Lockable>::synchronized_value() [with T = int; Lockable = boost::testable_mutex<boost::mutex>]??? ../libs/thread/test/sync/mutual_exclusion/synchronized_value/default_ctor_pass.cpp:23:76: required from here ../boost/atomic/detail/union_cast.hpp:35:14: error: member ???boost::thread::id boost::atomics::detail::union_cast(const From&) [with To = long unsigned int; From = boost::thread::id]::<anonymous union>::as_from??? with constructor not allowed in union From as_from; ^

1 0

How to identify sub-libraries/modules of a library?
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, I would like to separate the following sub-libraries/modules chrono/stopwatches and thread/executors. Could someone point me where can I find the things to do to split a library in submodules? How to identify them? How to have separated regression test pages? What the new boostdev tool needs? ... Best, Vicente

4 4

[modularization] Removing iterator->conversion dependency
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 09 Jun '14

09 Jun '14

Hi, in order to remove the dependency from iterator to conversion I suggest to move |boost/implicit_cast.hpp to MPL. | |Vicente | /conversion/ <http://www.pdimov.com/tmp/report-6d1f271/conversion.html> |<boost/implicit_cast.hpp>| * from |<boost/pending/iterator_tests.hpp>| |//boost/implicit_cast.hpp| |template <typename T> inline T implicit_cast (typename mpl::identity<T>::type x) { return x; } |

6 13