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

[BestPracticeHandbook] Run this code online
by Krzysztof Jusiak 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

Hi, I've recently added a new functionality to proposed boost.di library documentation. After `try it online` the natural next step was to add `run this code` functionality like in http://en.cppreference.com/w/ or http://www.rust-lang.org/ programming language. Powered by Wandbox and CodeMirror approach, let you play with the particular example and switch between normal quick book programming listing mode and the editor/compiler mode. You can check it here: http://krzysztof-jusiak.github.io/di/cpp14/boost/libs/di/doc/html/di/exampl… Just click on `Run this code` button and you will be switched to the editor mode, where you would be able to edit the code and compile it online using the newest version of the library. Implementation details: https://github.com/krzysztof-jusiak/di/blob/cpp14/doc/js/run_this_code.js It's basically the same solution as `try it online`, just implemented in js instead. Additionally, it also takes the newest version of the library from github. Minimal html: <link rel="stylesheet" href="CodeMirror/lib/codemirror.css"> <link rel="stylesheet" href="CodeMirror/theme/zenburn.css"> <script src="CodeMirror/lib/codemirror.js"></script> <script src="CodeMirror/mode/clike/clike.js"></script> <script src="CodeMirror/addon/selection/active-line.js"></script> <script src="run_this_code.js"></script> <button class="TryItBtn" id="run_it_btn" onclick="show(' https://raw.githubusercontent.com/krzysztof-jusiak/di/cpp14/examples/hello_…)">Run this code!<\/button> <textarea style="display: none" id="code"></textarea> <textarea style="display: none" id="output"></textarea> <div id="code_listing"> //quick book programming listing here or anything else, which should be hidden when editor mode is enabled </div> Let me know, what do you think. Cheers, Kris

3 2

Using clang on Windows with mingw-64
by Edward Diener 11 Jul '15

11 Jul '15

This is just a heads up about testing with clang on Windows. The latest clang, when built from the latest source, is now capable on Windows of using the mingw-64/gcc RTL. Furthermore it is no longer necessary to have the mingw/mingw-64 implementation hardcoded or linked from c:\mingw. With the latest clang the executable will look for a mingw/mingw-64 implementation on the PATH, meaning that the if the implementation's 'bin' directory is on the PATH clang will find it and use its RTL. The ability of the latest clang to use mingw-64 means that clang can use the latest gcc-5.1 RTL on Windows. The mingw-64 implementation offers more up to date and better implementations of gcc than mingw. There is one "gotcha" I have found with this setup on Windows when using clang on Windows with gcc-4.9 on up. The gcc intrin.h implementation of mingw-64 for gcc-4.9 on up has a bug where if the gcc version is less than 4.9 a compiler error will occur. I have reported this to mingw-64 on their developer's mailing list but it has been ignored. Unfortunately clang still sets itself to gcc version 4.2.1. But a workaround solves the problem and that workaround is that when using clang you define '__MINGW_FORCE_SYS_INTRINS', which causes the bug in the mingw-64 intrin.h header file to not trigger. Previous versions of clang on Windows ( 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 ) of course still have the limitation of only working with mingw and needing the mingw implementation hardcoded at c:\mingw. But at least with the latest clang built from source this has changed as explained above. The Boost build clang toolset, which on Windows is really clang-linux, should continue to work with this latest change of clang.

2 2

[1.59] Boost 1.59 schedule?
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

Hi, The official release schedule at http://www.boost.org/development/index.html seems to indicate we're now really close to the first beta of Boost 1.59, yet I don't see much activity in the mailing list and, for instance, the release notes are almost empty now: https://github.com/boostorg/website/blob/master/feed/history/boost_1_59_0.q… Is this schedule still valid? Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica

6 7

Problem cross-compiling boost.context for Raspberry Pi (2)
by Biddiscombe, John A. 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

Hello list, I am able to compile the full set of boost libraries on the Raspberry Pi, and I get all the libraries successfully built, including context and coroutine which I need. However, when I cross compile on an Ubuntu virtual machine setup for the job, all the libraries except context/coroutine are built. The problem seems to be that when cross compiling, the file "unsupported.cpp" is being pulled in (here is a verbose output showing flag I'm using) "/home/biddisco/pi/tools/arm-bcm2708/gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-raspbian-x64/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++" -ftemplate-depth-128 -O3 -finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall -pthread -fPIC -D__arm__ -std=c++11 -mcpu=cortex-a7 -mfpu=neon-vfpv4 -mfloat-abi=hard -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_CHRONO_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_CONTEXT_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_CONTEXT_SOURCE -DBOOST_SYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_NO_DEPRECATED -DBOOST_THREAD_BUILD_DLL=1 -DBOOST_THREAD_POSIX -DBOOST_THREAD_USE_DLL=1 -DNDEBUG -I"." -c -o "bin.v2/libs/context/build/gcc-arm/release/threading-multi/unsupported.o" "libs/context/src/unsupported.cpp" which emanates from the jamfile boost_1_58_0/libs/context/build/Jamfile.v2 where the following alias asm_context_sources : unsupported.cpp ; is in a section marked #COMBINED Now, when I build on the pi itself, this file is not being added to the build, so it seems to me that during the bootstrap phase on the pi, different flags are being used which trigger the correct behaviour of bjam my user-config.jam looks like this using gcc : : /home/biddisco/pi/tools/arm-bcm2708/gcc-linaro-arm-linux-gnueabihf-raspbian-x64/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ : <compile-flags>-D__arm__ -mcpu=cortex-a7 -mfpu=neon-vfpv4 -mfloat-abi=hard ; (NB. I added -D__arm__ to see if it helps, but it does not make a difference without it). I have no knowledge of how bjam / boost.build do their things, so I do not know what to try next. It seems that I need to bootstrap the build using the flags for the pi, but built for the host so that it can generate the correct makefiles and this looks like where the problem is arising. the build process seems good apart from this wrinkle The bootstrap command I'm using is ./bootstrap.sh --with-toolset=gcc and the build appears sensible when I use ./b2 cxxflags="-D__arm__ -std=c++11 -mcpu=cortex-a7 -mfpu=neon-vfpv4 -mfloat-abi=hard" --layout=versioned threading=multi link=shared variant=release -j8 Performing configuration checks - 32-bit : yes - arm : yes .... etc etc Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong? (Note : With another project which depends on libpthread, I had to copy libpthread from the pi to the host and force the linker to use the pthread lib from the pi and not the host one, does bjam do something internally which might require a trick like this? - note2 - the binaries generated via this process run without error) Many thanks JB -- John Biddiscombe, email:biddisco @.at.@ cscs.ch http://www.cscs.ch/ CSCS, Swiss National Supercomputing Centre | Tel: +41 (91) 610.82.07 Via Trevano 131, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland | Fax: +41 (91) 610.82.82

4 17

Json read...segment by segment
by vijay.singh＠edisphere.com 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Hi, I am using below code to read load Json file in boost::property_tree::ptree object. Function read_json(.) read all file content at a time. I want to know is there any way to read file content segment by segment. Thanks and regards, Vijay int _tmai3n(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { try { std::stringstream ss; std::ifstream file("D:\\EdisphereComp\\kit\\1003_Kit\\1003\\Inputfiles\\AI98_Test_3.json", std::ios::binary); // Make sure we have something to read. if (!file.is_open()) { throw (std::exception("Could not open file.")); } // Copy contents "as efficiently as possible". ss << file.rdbuf(); boost::property_tree::ptree pt; boost::property_tree::read_json(ss, pt); boost::property_tree::write_json("D:\\EdisphereComp\\kit\\1003_Kit\\1003\\In putfiles\\AI98_Test_3_sprite.json", pt); } catch (boost::property_tree::json_parser_error e) { ; } //} return 0; }

4 7

Boost.Test v3 is in master
by Gennadiy Rozental 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Hi, I've merged new Boost.Test into the master branch. We'll look for any regressions, but I do not expect big changes before release. Gennadiy

2 1

[test] Bug in Mingw support?
by John Maddock 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

The short program below passes with MSVC and GCC Linux, but fails with Mingw-x64 at runtime (the expected failures count gets ignored). This is with current develop. Any ideas? BTW the new decorator based approach does work OK, but is only supported on a tiny number of compilers as it seems to rely on the preprocessor lib using variadic macros, as opposed to Boost.Config marking them as available. Here's the program: #define BOOST_TEST_MAIN #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp> BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE_EXPECTED_FAILURES(test_main, 10000); BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(test_main) { BOOST_ERROR("one"); BOOST_ERROR("two"); } Thanks, John.

3 7

Boost Graph maintenance
by Oodini 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

Hello, I've been working on BGL for several days, and I'll probably have to work on it for a long time. The documentation is not very clear (I suspect it is outdated on some points), and as it doesn't seem complete. Also, the official maintener, Jeremiah Willcock, hasn't commited since the end of 2013. I'd like to work on the documentation, in the first time on the organization and presentation. If I amend the text later, I will need a reviewer (my english is not good enough). What would be the process ? I havn't participated to any Boost library.

5 5

Boost.Experimental Re: [variant] Maintainer
by Gottlob Frege 07 Jul '15

07 Jul '15

On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Agustín K-ballo Bergé <kaballo86(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6/28/2015 5:38 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote: >> >> Le 27/06/15 21:32, Agustín K-ballo Bergé a écrit : >>> >>> On 6/27/2015 12:38 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote: >>>> >>>> I would accept Eggs.Variant without even a review (or with a minimal >>>> review) as an experimental library as part of Boost.Variant after some >>>> minimal adaptation to fit in Boost of course. >>> >>> First of, as I have already said before, Eggs.Variant is an >>> experiment. As such it is highly unstable, and I reserve the right to >>> change things in any way I see fit, with no regards for backwards >>> compatibility, maintenance, or support. I have made these kinds of >>> changes in the past, and I have more planned for the near future. I >>> think it would be unwise to make it a part of Boost, even as an >>> experimental library, until the design has fully hatched ("Eggs", get >>> it?). >> >> Agustin, this is exactly the kind of constraints of an experimental >> library. When the design is fully hatched then it moves to non >> experimental. > > > I fail to see the point in including an experimental library that changes > its interface every month into Boost, which is released every 3 months or > so. By the time you get your hands in a release, the interface of the > library has already changed. And the library as such would only exist for a > single release. > > Who would benefit from Boost packaging old snapshots of experimental > libraries? > > Perhaps you'd wish to bring back the Sandbox > (http://www.boost.org/community/sandbox.html) which has been superseded by > standalone repositories since the move to Git. > I think we need *something* for experimental libraries. Even if it is just someone's own git repository stamped (but not endorsed) with the Boost "brand". Or a page in boost.org listing current experiments. Or... something. There are (at least) 2 needs that Boost tackles: 1. great libraries that solve problems for developers 2. great libraries that can turn into std:: libraries I think we are doing better on 1 than 2. I think 2 requires more experimentation (whereas 1 requires more stability). Yes I know 2 looks successful - just look at how much of boost is in C++11. But when each Boost library is brought to the committee, we have 2 choices: - make design changes before going into std - take as is Making design choices in a committee (and without experimenting) is not always a good idea. We are, in theory at least, suppose to standardize existing behaviour. Taking as is means we are accepting whatever was good enough to pass Boost review as *best*. Boost review is a high bar, but the std:: should be higher. It is common for the committee to hear/say "boost users have been using it this way for years". That is usually a good strong argument - we want/need implementation and usage experience. But saying "this works" doesn't mean something else could work better. Implementation/usage experience is most accurate when it says "this does NOT work", because then you have ruled out an option. When you say "this works", it doesn't rule out options that might work _better_. We are increasingly going with option 3: - put into std::experimental which delays the desired outcome of getting great libraries into the standard. I'd like some kind of experimental area that would help find the best possible libraries. What I'd _really_ like is more experimentation in _current_ Boost libraries, breaking users left and right - I'd rather break boost users than std:: users. (We have and will make breaking changes in the standard library). But I understand that current users wouldn't be too happy about breaking changes _just for experimentation's sake_. And if we lost the boost user base, boost would no longer be helpful to the standard at all. (As a reasonable example of not being afraid of breaking changes: Sean Parent's Adobe Standard Library would boldly break whenever he thought something could be made better. It didn't break just for experimenting, but he wasn't afraid to make breaking changes for the better.)

6 11

[predef] Using predef-check on 'develop' problem
by Edward Diener 06 Jul '15

06 Jul '15

In a jam file I have for a run test a predef-check which looks like: run test_variadic_macro.cpp : : : [ predef-check "BOOST_COMP_GNUC >= 4.3" "BOOST_OS_QNX == 0" : : <cxxflags>-std=c++0x ] ; When running on QNX with the gcc version greater than 4.3 I would expect that -std=c++0x would not be added as a C++ compile parameter to the run. Yet it is being added to the run. Another test confirms that BOOST_OS_QNX is indeed being set to a non-zero value. Is there a bug in predef-check ? Am I using it incorrectly ?

4 45