November 2016 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

cross-compiling linux->osx: file was built for archive which is not the architecture being linked (x86_64)
by Frédéric Bron 09 Nov '16

09 Nov '16

I am trying to cross-compile for osx from linux using clang. When I build boost, I use the following: CC="x86_64-apple-darwin13-clang" CFLAGS="-O2 -DNDEBUG" CXX="x86_64-apple-darwin13-clang++-libc++" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -DNDEBUG -std=c++14" AR="x86_64-apple-darwin13-ar" AS="x86_64-apple-darwin13-as" RANLIB="x86_64-apple-darwin13-ranlib" ./bootstrap.sh --without-icu --prefix=/softs/usr/darwin13-clang/release/boost --with-toolset=clang Then I use the following user-config.jam: using clang : : x86_64-apple-darwin13-clang++-libc++ : <cxxflags>-std=c++14 ; with the following command: ./b2 -d2 -j8 --layout=system --user-config=user-config.jam --without-mpi --without-python --without-context --without-coroutine link=static threading=multi runtime-link=shared target-os=darwin threadapi=pthread address-model=64 define=BOOST_THREAD_USE_LIB define=BOOST_LOG_WITHOUT_EVENT_LOG variant=release install Apart from a few errors, everythings looks fine: ...failed updating 3 targets... ...skipped 3 targets... ...updated 13684 targets... However, when I link against the static libraries that have been built, I get this type of messages: ld: warning: ignoring file /softs/usr/darwin13-clang/release/boost/lib/libboost_system.a, file was built for archive which is not the architecture being linked (x86_64): /softs/usr/darwin13-clang/release/boost/lib/libboost_system.a I suspect that it is because the wrong ar and ranlib where used because I find in my log that b2 used "ar" and "ranlib" instead of "x86_64-apple-darwin13-ar" and "x86_64-apple-darwin13-ranlib". So I changed my user-config.jam to: using clang : : x86_64-apple-darwin13-clang++-libc++ : <cxxflags>-std=c++14 <archiver>x86_64-apple-darwin13-ar <ranlib>x86_64-apple-darwin13-ranlib ; but b2 is still using "ar" and "ranlib". Any idea of what my problem is? Frédéric

1 1

Support for fixed point arithmetic in Boost?
by Juan Dent 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Hi, Sorry if this is a dumb question but I have been looking for fixed point types in Boost and not found any... Yet I feel there must be... Thanks for any help Juan

4 5

Fw: Build failed: smart_ptr 1.0.31-develop
by Peter Dimov 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

I'm getting a weird error from the CI: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/pdimov/smart-ptr/build/1.0.31-develop C:/projects/boost-root/tools/build/src\build-system.jam:982: in load *** argument error * rule boostcpp.post-build ( ok ? ) * called with: ( ok ok ) * extra argument ok C:/projects/boost-root\boostcpp.jam:513:see definition of rule 'boostcpp.post-build' being called C:\projects\boost-root\tools\build\src/kernel\modules.jam:295: in import C:\projects\boost-root\tools\build\src/kernel/bootstrap.jam:139: in boost-build C:\projects\boost-root\boost-build.jam:17: in module scope Command exited with code 1 This is Submodule path 'tools/build': checked out '32113ca3ddbc637d08e85c44502f3149d37323e0'

2 1

[process] The Formal review preiod is nearing the end
by Antony Polukhin 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

Dear Boost community, The formal review of Klemens David Morgenstern's Process library ends on 5th November. If you're willing to write a review - please hurry up! If you're willing to write the review but could not make it on time - please give a hint. In that case it is possible to postpone the final decision for a few days. Thanks in advance! -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

5 8

[process] Formal review has ended
by Antony Polukhin 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

The library review has ended. I will need a few more days to calculate the votes and to wait for some people that spend a lot of time to make their vote more explicit. At this point, following people voted: * Johannes * Niall Douglas * Tom Kent * Paul A. Bristow * Bjorn Reese * Edward Diener * Boris Schäling If I've missed someone, please notify me. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

2 2

[iostreams] Last develop commit breaks release builds.
by Rene Rivera 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

FYI.. This commit: < https://github.com/boostorg/iostreams/commit/0a87de8932641a3896f49872a3c034… > Is causing release build errors. See the CI logs for details.. <https://circleci.com/gh/boostorg/boost/2190> Please address ASAP. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail

2 2

[config] std::shuffle support
by Edward Diener 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

Does Boost config currently have a macro to determine whether the c++11 std::shuffle algorithm is supported for a particular compiler ? If not supporting /std:c++latest by changing std::random_shuffle to std::shuffle will not be possible for c++03 libraries.

3 6

interest in structure of arrays container?
by Michael Marcin 06 Nov '16

06 Nov '16

Structure of arrays is a pretty well known pattern for improving memory density and enabling vectorization in high performance code. Also known as parallel arrays[1]. After hand-rolling yet another of these it occurred to me that you make a reasonable first implementation with a simple alias template. template< typename... Ts > using soa = std::tuple< std::vector<Ts>... >; example: soa<int,float,std::string> data; This is decent start but has several issues including: * nothing to preserve the invariant keeping the arrays the same length * missing coalesced interface for vector methods (size, reserve, etc) * no iterator * wasted storage for duplicated allocators, capacities, sizes * sizeof...(Ts) allocations could be a single large block The work required to address these issues is not too great I think. Potential names: soa<Ts> structure_of_arrays<Ts> parallel_array<Ts> struct_array<Ts> parallel_vector<Ts> struct_vector<Ts> Does this already exist somewhere? Does it seem useful? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_array

10 79

Re: [boost] [process] Formal Review starts today, 27 October
by Bjorn Reese 06 Nov '16

06 Nov '16

On 10/30/2016 02:21 PM, Bjorn Reese wrote: > On 10/27/2016 08:26 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote: > >> - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost >> * Conditions for acceptance > > I withhold judgement for now to give the author an opportunity to > respond. At the moment I am unsure whether to vote for conditional > acceptance or rejection. I vote for conditional acceptance, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The interface style must be redesigned such that: a. There is a clear separation between arguments and attributes. b. Arguments and attributes should not be arbitrarily interspersed in the parameter list. c. A set of attributes can be build in advance, and reused for different child processes. d. Attributes can be optionally to the attribute-set. 2. There should be no I/O deadlocks by default. 3. An Overview section that introduces the concepts and the various parts of the library must be added to the documentation.

1 0

[process] Formal Review starts today, 27 October
by Antony Polukhin 05 Nov '16

05 Nov '16

Dear Boost community, The formal review of Klemens David Morgenstern's Process library begins today, 27th October and ends on 5th November. Process is a C++11 library to manage system processes. It can be used to: * create child processes * setup streams for child processes * communicate with child processes through streams (synchronously or asynchronously) * wait for processes to exit (synchronously or asynchronously) * terminate processes Full documentation with examples and tutorial is available at http://klemens-morgenstern.github.io/process/index.html Stable source codes for review are available at https://github.com/klemens-morgenstern/boost-process/tree/boost_review Latest source codes available at https://github.com/klemens-morgenstern/boost-process We encourage your participation in this review. At a minimum, kindly state: - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost * Conditions for acceptance - Your knowledge of the problem domain You are strongly encouraged to also provide additional information: - What is your evaluation of the library's: * Design * Implementation * Documentation * Tests * Usefulness - Did you attempt to use the library? If so: * Which compiler(s) * What was the experience? Any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation of the review? We await your feedback! -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

10 38