July 2015 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Boost.DLL formal review is ongoing
by Vladimir Prus 16 Jul '15

16 Jul '15

The formal review of Boost.DLL library by Antony Polukhin is nearing the end of the first week. As of today, over 100 people read through the library's tutorial, suggesting quite some interest. However, no reviews were submitted yet. Please take the time to post your thoughts - even if you don't have time to do a full review, or try the library, comments on design and interfaces are still very valuable. The summary of the library features and review checklists are reproduced below. Boost.DLL is a C++98 library for comfortable work with DLL and DSO. Library provides a portable across platforms way to: - load libraries at runtime - import and export any native functions and variables - make alias names for C++ mangled functions and symbols - query libraries/objects and executables for sections and exported symbols - self loading and self querying - getting program and module location by exported symbol The documentation can be found at: http://apolukhin.github.io/Boost.DLL/index.html and the source can be obtained at: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL Please post your reviews on the mailing list and if possible, answer the following questions: - Should the library be accepted? - How useful is it? - What's your evaluation of - Design - Implementation - Documentations - Tests - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? - Did you attempt to use the library? On what systems and compilers? Thanks, Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

16 42

[afio] AFIO review postponed till Monday
by Niall Douglas 16 Jul '15

16 Jul '15

Just a quick heads up that the AFIO review is postponed till Monday to give me more time to refactor the docs to match the final API. Some quick notes on what will be presented for review, so there are no surprises: 1. I won't have the time to rewrite the code examples into C++ 1z coroutines before the review unfortunately, so you'll get a warning sign in the docs saying that is coming. The code example this matters most to is the find regex in files example as the code is very messy (full of callback handlers) without coroutines. 2. The API presented is expected to be a final API, but the implementation will be a messy conglomeration of the existing mature dispatch engine with the new lightweight future-promises. In other words, code will compile and run, but the internal engine is going to be completely replaced eventually as I debug lightweight future-promises. As lightweight future-promises is all brand new code mostly written between 12am and 4am each night since May after a work day, I don't hugely trust it enough to present you guys with an engine based on it. Just because it passes a conformance suite doesn't mean it is without quirks - plus, I discovered some surprises in the Concurrency TS about which I'll need to get some clarifications. As I mentioned though, the user facing API will be final, as promised. And it does use monads and lightweight future-promise. 3. Minimum compilers will unfortunately be GCC 4.8, clang 3.2 and VS2015. Sorry about that, lightweight monadic future-promises substantially bumped the compiler requirements, even as it is I have several GCC 4.8 specific workarounds. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

1 0

[predef] The predef-check functionality is not working on the Android regression tests
by Edward Diener 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

I do not believe that predef-check is working at all on the Android regression tests. Predef itself appears to be working as far as the predef macro values. But attempting to use predef-check to set a <cxxflags> value is just not happening. I can attest that just setting a <cxxflags> value, outside of using predef-check, does work correctly on the Android regression tests. The failure is occurring on my VMD tests. But you can also see the failure on the predef tests also. Looking at the info_as_cpp test output at http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/CrystaX-NET-apilev… you can see that BOOST_COMP_CLANG > 0 and BOOST_OS_LINUX = 0. Yet if you look at the corresponding check_value test at http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/CrystaX-NET-apilev… you will see that the output is 'CHECK_VALUE == undefined', whereas if predef-check were actually working the output should be 'CHECK_VALUE == 1' ( or 'true' ). In all other environments predef-check is working. Maybe this failure of predef-check somehow occurs because the Android tests are a cross-compile, being done on a Unix system but targeting the Android. But for whatever reason the inability of getting predef-check to work keeps my VMD tests from adding the '-std=c++0x' option and the VMD tests all fail without that option since the variadic macro support in VMD for gcc needs C++11 support or better.

3 6

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Boost 1_59_0_b1_rc1 is available for testing
by Marshall Clow 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Gavin Lambert <gavinl(a)compacsort.com> wrote: > On 15/07/2015 14:59, Edward Diener wrote: > >> Because MPL is so central to everything it seems it is too late to get >> these fixes into 'master', have the regression tested on 'master' and >> into the upcoming release at this point. >> > > Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not a library maintainer or > release manager, but: > > Since it's still at a beta release stage (if I'm understanding correctly), > this seems to me like the perfect time to merge bugfixes, especially ones > that have already been tested on develop. > > Part of the point of having a beta cycle is to discover these > accidentally-left-out elements and correct them. > > After we ship the beta, before the 1.59.0 release, library maintainers will have time to fix bugs that were found in the beta. -- Marshall

1 0

[foreach] use of boost_foreach_argument_dependent_lookup_hack
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

Hi, Boost.MultiIndex indices, which are not copyable, interoperate with Boost.Foreach by defining the following: template<typename SuperMeta,typename TagList> inline boost::mpl::true_* boost_foreach_is_noncopyable( boost::multi_index::detail::sequenced_index<SuperMeta,TagList>*&, boost::foreach::tag) { return 0; } Unfortunately Qt (in some configuration modes, at least), defines a macro foreach to Q_FOREACH, which produces the following problem, even if Boost.Foreach was not intended to be used: http://tinyurl.com/nq52xho My question is: would it be OK if the code above was rewritten like template<typename SuperMeta,typename TagList> inline boost::mpl::true_* boost_foreach_is_noncopyable( boost::multi_index::detail::sequenced_index<SuperMeta,TagList>*&, boost_foreach_argument_dependent_lookup_hack) { return 0; } so that "foreach" is not ever mentioned? I understand that Boost.Foreach would still not work unless the macro is not defined, but this would at least save Boost.MultiIndex, which doesn't really depend on Boost.Foreach. Thanks for your comments, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica

4 12

Serializing shared_ptr fails on .template
by Jared McIntyre 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

I've run into an issue where VS 2013, and likely earlier versions, fail to serialize a shared_ptr because Visual Studio is choking on the use of ar.template get_helper in load() to remove ambiguity. The issue appears to replicate previous bug report here: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/10727 That report didn't post an example, so instead of adding a new bug, I've posted example code to that existing report. VS 2013 Boost 1.57 Jared McIntyre

3 8

[variant] Maintainer
by Antony Polukhin 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

Hi, I've been keeping an eye on Boost.Varinat for a few years. Since then multiple issues were closed; support for rvalues and variadic templates was added; other good things happened. Could I be promoted to an official maintainer of Variant? This will help me to react on issues faster (email notifications) which is essential. I'm also planning to add missing features from N4450 without affecting the current never-empty behaviour and without breaking existing code. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

27 75

Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Boost 1_59_0_b1_rc1 regression in spirit::qi
by Lee Clagett 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Oswin Krause < Oswin.Krause(a)ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015-07-14 05:54, Marshall Clow wrote: > >> Release candidate files for 1.59.0 beta 1 are available at >> http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ [1] >> >> As always, the release managers would appreciate it if you download >> the candidate of your choice and give building it a try. Please report >> both success and failure, and anything else that is noteworthy. >> > > Boost compiles fine, OS Arch Linux, x86_64. > > However, i got a regression in my software using boost::spirit::qi > > See attached the program (i guess it does not qualify minimal, but i do > not have time to trace it further), output of g++/valgrind for boost 1.58 > and for 1.59. There seems to be a signed/unsigned comparison issue and > valgrind detects a conditional jump that depends on unintialized memory. In > my code this showed up as 4 values read from the parsed file have wrong > values albeit the 200 or so other values before and after are fine. > > Best, > Oswin > > I found the issue, and issued a pull request to fix it. Joel let me know if you want a test case; a variable currently unitialized (presumably intentionally) would have to be value-initialized to make it reliably catch this particular case (and then it could suppress errors if the float is `0`). Lee

1 0

Boost.DLL Review is finished
by Vladimir Prus 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

Boosters, the formal review of the Boost.DLL library by Antony Polukhin is now finished. The preliminary results are as follows: The following people have provided reviews: - Ralf Globisch - Yes - Klaim - Joël Lamotte - Yes (*) - Niall Douglas - Yes, conditionally - John P Fletcher - Yes - Bjorn Reese - Yes - Edward Diener - Yes Klaim - Joël has asked that his vote is not counted until he's done trying the library for real, and there was no confirmation it's done yet. The following people have contributed, but did not provide a review - Rodrigo Madera - Thomas Trummer - Rob Stewart - Ion Gaztañaga If anybody would like to amend or clarify anything, or plans to provide additional comments during this week, please contact me off-list. I will post final review result after that. Thanks, Volodya

2 1

Boost.DLL formal review
by Vladimir Prus 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

The formal review of Boost.DLL library by Antony Polukhin starts today. Boost.DLL is a C++98 library for comfortable work with DLL and DSO. Library provides a portable across platforms way to: - load libraries at runtime - import and export any native functions and variables - make alias names for C++ mangled functions and symbols - query libraries/objects and executables for sections and exported symbols - self loading and self querying - getting program and module location by exported symbol The documentation can be found at: http://apolukhin.github.io/Boost.DLL/index.html and the source can be obtained at: https://github.com/apolukhin/Boost.DLL Please post your reviews on the mailing list and if possible, answer the following questions: - Should the library be accepted? - How useful is it? - What's your evaluation of - Design - Implementation - Documentations - Tests - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? - Did you attempt to use the library? On what systems and compilers? This formal review has a couple of adjustments in place: - It will run for two calendar weeks, not for 10 days, as a number of people said 10 days is too little. That said, please try to submit a review during first week, so that necessary discussion can happen conveniently. - The documentation site has Google Analytics enabled, which will allow us to see which pages and navigation paths are most useful for reviewers. No personally identifiable information will be collected. I will post the data after the review is over. Thanks, Volodya

4 6