July 2021 - Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
by Jon Kalb 13 Aug '24

13 Aug '24

The libraries produced by the Boost community have had a greater impact on the way that the C++ community writes code than any other library implementation. The focus of the Boost community will always be on the libraries, but it is undeniable that we are dependent on and often limited by the infrastructure of our trade. Years ago, the move to Git was contentious; yet, it was required to improve development. In a similar vein our build system has become an impediment for many developers and users, existing and prospective. Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community our desire and intent to move Boost’s build system to CMake for users and developers alike. We are soliciting comments and proposals from the community to guide the process and the goals. Our desire is that the community can come to consensus by the end of the calendar year with a vision of supporting users and developers. We understand that the actual process of achieving the end goal will be long, time consuming, and not without its share of conflict. We also recognize that the Boost community is comprised of bright and passionate individuals that are eager to get involved and help get work done. The members of the Steering Committee have been encouraged by the discussions and activity surrounding CMake on the mailing lists over the years and know that many people have voiced visions. We hope that each of you rejoins the discussion to support this initiative and contributes to the common goal of improving Boost’s integration into the broader C++ ecosystem. For the Boost Steering Committee, Jon Kalb, Chair jonkalb(a)boost.org

49 199

Boost Governance?
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 09 Aug '24

09 Aug '24

A disclaimer: I write this solely as a Boost Library author. And not in any other capacity or representing any other interest. It's now been at least a year since Boost switched from the Software Freedom Conservancy to the Boost Foundation for its governance organization. But have people noticed any difference? Did you know that switch happened? Did you know that they held an election for the Board of Directors and for the Officers? Do you know when that election happened? Do you know who got elected? Do you know how they were selected? Do you know what their responsibilities are? Do you know what their bylaws are? Do you know their financials? More importantly: Did you answer "no" to any of those questions? As a library author, I can say I definitely answered no to many of those questions. This is a problem. As authors, without asking, we should know those answers from the organization that governs our work. We should have input into how that organization governs. In other words, we deserve open and transparent governance; not the closed and opaque status quo. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

10 9

Boost.Text is looking for a (mini-)review manager
by Zach Laine 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

I've made all the recommended changes to Boost.Text that came up in the review. Glen, the previous review manager, recommended a mini review of Boost.Text once I'd made those changes. If you'd like to manage the mini-review, please let me know. For everyone, including potential reviewers and review managers, here are the major changes: * All the specific review feedback issues have been addressed. * The string layer is now gone. * The text layer got a major re-work. It is now a set of template-based adaptors (basic_text<>, vs. a text typedef. etc.), which lets everyone get what they want. You can change the underlying storage type (including whatever allocator you prefer), select UTF-8 or UTF-16, and change the normalization form. Glen recommended I drop this layer, but the library is way less useful without this stuff, and these changes address all the concerns raised about the text layer in the review. The updated docs can be found here: https://tzlaine.github.io/text/doc/html/index.html Oh yeah, and I added concept constraints to the whole library when you build in C++20 mode. Zach

17 46

[review][JSON] Review of JSON starts today: Sept 14 - Sept 23
by Pranam Lashkari 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Boost formal review of Vinnie Falco and Krystian Stasiowski's library JSON starts today and will run for 10 days ending on 23 Sept 2020. Both of these authors have already developed a couple of libraries which are accepted in Boost(boost beast and Static String) This library focuses on a common and popular use-case for JSON. It provides a container to hold parsed and serialised JSON types. It provides more flexibility and better benchmark performance than its competitors. JSON highlights the following features in the documentation: - Fast compilation - Require only C++11 - Fast streaming parser and serializer - Easy and safe API with allocator support - Constant-time key lookup for objects - Options to allow non-standard JSON - Compile without Boost, define BOOST_JSON_STANDALONE - Optional header-only, without linking to a library (a point I would like to add in highlight: it has cool Jason logo 😝) To quickly understand and get the flavour of the library take a look at "Quick Look" <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/usage/quick_look.html> You can find the source code to be reviewed here: <https://github.com/CPPAlliance/json/tree/master> You can find the latest documentation here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/> Benchmarks are also given in the document which can be found here: <http://master.json.cpp.al/json/benchmarks.html> Some people have also given the early reviews, the thread can be found here: <https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2020/09/249745.php> Please provide in your review information you think is valuable to understand your choice to ACCEPT or REJECT including JSON as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision (ACCEPT or REJECT). Some other questions you might want to consider answering: - What is your evaluation of the design? - What is your evaluation of the implementation? - What is your evaluation of the documentation? - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you have any problems? - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? More information about the Boost Formal Review Process can be found here: <http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html> Thank you for your effort in the Boost community. -- Thank you, Pranam Lashkari, https://lpranam.github.io/

21 73

[container] Contributing 'stationary_vector' to Boost
by Mehrdad Niknami 13 Jun '22

13 Jun '22

Hi all, Happy new year! New mailing list member here. I've developed an STL-style stationary_vector class that retains elements in-place when growing. Very briefly, it is effectively a piecewise-contiguous vector, with the following advantages over vector: - Appending has O(1) overhead in the *worst* case (e.g., push_back() does not move elements) - Insertion and random-access can be done in parallel, as prior iterators & references remain valid This has a variety of benefits, including better UX (no "hiccups" due to reallocations), and the ability to simplify parallel processing of streaming data. It occurred to me the larger C++ community might find this useful. I was wondering if there would be interest in incorporating it into Boost.Container, and if so, what steps I could take to make that happen? I'm of course happy to discuss the design etc. with anyone who might be interested. Summary: https://github.com/mehrdadn/libvital/blob/master/doc/vital/container/statio… Implementation: https://github.com/mehrdadn/libvital/blob/master/include/vital/container/st… Thank you, Mehrdad

7 19

Adding my sorting algorithm, ska_sort, to boost, attempt 2
by Malte Skarupke 24 Nov '21

24 Nov '21

Hi everyone, I started a discussion about this in October, but at the time the maintainer of the sort library was busy, then I was busy, so now it's January... I wrote a generalized version of radix sort a couple years ago and gave a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqs87a_7zxw I would like to get a new version of that sorting algorithm into boost. It's faster than what I showed several years ago. It's also even more general and has a new interface that should be easier to extend. I uploaded the code here: https://github.com/skarupke/sort/tree/master The documentation is also already updated with new benchmark results. Let me know what's required to get this into boost. Would you like this in the form of a pull request? One of the big things that probably needs review is the interface, since radix sorting works differently than comparison based sorting. For most normal uses you just need to provide a sort key, but more complicated cases can get more complicated. I tried very hard to make everything easy, but I'd also be curious if others can come up with better ways of doing the interface. Thanks, Malte -- Malte Skarupke malteskarupke(a)fastmail.fm

8 10

I would like to add boost::algorithm::is_clamped, how to proceed?
by Ivan Matek 13 Aug '21

13 Aug '21

Hi, I would like to add is_clamped (that tests if the value is clamped, similar how we have std::is_sorted, std::sort). What would be the proper procedure? I have never committed to boost, so I have no access to any repository, no "contacts", so I have no idea if small proposals like this require just approval from owner or it needs broader discussion(for example in some cases it would be nice fix for missing chain comparison <https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/chaining-comparison-operators-python/> in core language, but then is_clamped name is not that nice, is_between might be nicer,...). Also I am not sure if this is the best place to ask for directions and do discussions, if you have some slack channel or forum you prefer please let me know. There was a proposal <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1440r0.html>for std::, but it is not in C++20. I have no relation to that proposal. regards, Ivan

3 8

Regexp performance guarantees
by Phil Endecott 30 Jul '21

30 Jul '21

Dear Experts, I recently wanted to add some input-sanitising code to a C++ web application, and as I had some existing Javascript code I decided to port its regex-based input checking to the C++ code. This didn't go as well as I had expected! Here's an example of the sort of thing I have: if (!regexp_match(s, regex("[A-Za-z0-9-_/]{1,8192}"))) throw MalformedInput(); The Javascript equivalent seems to be fine. In C++, with libstdc++'s regex implementation, it seems to take about 2 seconds to run. Boost.Regex didn't like the '-' after the '9' but when I fixed that the execution time became negligible. Boost.Xpressive seems also to be fast. On investigation it seems that this is due to there being two different algorithms, one of which (DFA) is linear in the string size but exponential in the pattern size (which in this case seems to mean exponential in the max repeat value of 8192), and the other (backtracking) is linear in the pattern size but exponential in the string size. It seems that the standard deliberately doesn't specify complexity guarantees for std::regex, leaving the choice of algorithm to the implementation. I find this a bit surprising. It's true that both algorithms have their strengths, but not knowing which you are going to get is the worst of both worlds - you would have to assume that it will be exponential in both pattern and string sizes in portable code! (Imagine a container that doesn't disclose whether it has vector or list complexity!) So I'm wondering if it would be useful for regex libraries to somehow be explicit about which algorithm they are and what the complexity is. Compare, for example, with the text search algorithms (Boyer-Moore etc) which indicate the algorithm in their names. Could we have regex_dfa / regex_backtracking, or something? Now having said that, I think that what I really need for my application is something that is worst-case linear in both the pattern size and the input string. I'm not sure if the apparently-fast Boost.Regex algorithm has a worst-case input that is slow. ("Regular Expression Denial Of Service"). It's clear that my example can be written without a regex as a simple linear loop, and maybe some regex libraries have heuristics that do that. Thoughts anyone? Regards, Phil.

8 13

[release] 1.77.0 post-beta merges
by Marshall Clow 30 Jul '21

30 Jul '21

The master branch is is now open for post-beta merges, but only as described in the Post-Beta Merge Policy. See <https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy> Reminder: The master branch closes for the release on Wednesday, August 4th. Full calendar here: https://www.boost.org/development/ <https://www.boost.org/development/> — Marshall P.S Doc changes and test changes do NOT require release manager approval to be merged.

5 13

Different Lib/CMake Layout between Pre-Build-Binaries and Build from source
by Dennis Luehring 26 Jul '21

26 Jul '21

target_link_libaries(... Boost::boost) seems not to work if the stagedir/<lib> folder is missing but the pre-build binaries missing this folder https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-binaries/1.75.0/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-binaries/1.75.0/boost_1_… boost_1_75_0 <boost> ... bootstrap.bat bootstrap.sh <lib64-msvc-14.1> <cmake> *.lib if i build 1.75.0 from source with b2 --toolset=msvc-14.1 --stagedir=./lib64-msvc-14.1 address-model=64 architecture=x86 link=static threading=multi i've get this hierachy c:\Boost\boost_1_75_0 <boost> ... bootstrap.bat bootstrap.sh ... <lib64-msvc-14.1> <-- stagedir <lib> <cmake> *.lib what is the very same hierarchy with Qt6 cmake-configs (so its seems to be "more" standard) C:\Qt\6.1.2 <msvc2017_64> <-- aka "stagedir" <lib> <cmake> Qt6*.lib why does the pre build binary package got a different hierarchy?

1 0

[bimap][PR RFC] Add std::initializer_list constructor
by Hu Jialun 23 Jul '21

23 Jul '21

C++11 allows list initialization for classes. STL map has been added a constructor with the signature map(initializer_list<value_type> il, const allocator_type& alloc = allocator_type()); Added a similar constructor to bimap, allowing for initialization in the form of initializer list, such as boost::bimap<double, long> tdn { {114.514, 1919}, {891.931, 810} }; --- Seems that the pull request is not being seen for a while... Could someone please take a quick look at it and possibly give some directions? :) https://github.com/boostorg/bimap/pull/31 include/boost/bimap/bimap.hpp | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/boost/bimap/bimap.hpp b/include/boost/bimap/bimap.hpp index 5fe7a3f..a3603e5 100644 --- a/include/boost/bimap/bimap.hpp +++ b/include/boost/bimap/bimap.hpp @@ -265,6 +265,29 @@ class bimap {} + #ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_INITIALIZER_LIST + bimap(std::initializer_list<BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME base_::core_type::value_type> init, + const allocator_type& al = allocator_type()) : + + base_::relation_set( + ::boost::multi_index::get< + BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME base_::logic_relation_set_tag>(core) + ), + + core(init,ctor_args_list(),al), + + left ( + ::boost::multi_index::get< + BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME base_::logic_left_tag>(core) + ), + right ( + ::boost::multi_index::get< + BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME base_::logic_right_tag>(core) + ) + + {} + #endif + bimap(const bimap& x) : base_::relation_set(

1 0

CMake: using boosts own package finding stuff, howto?
by Dennis Luehring 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

in short: CMake does need to change (i'll need to wait for updates) to support newer released boost versions i've heard that Boost supports cmake now directly but i don't get the direct cmake support of boost working with my CMakeLists.txt i know that CMake supports 1.75 in the lastest releases directly but 1.76 and 1.77 are still not on the list and i don't want to wait for CMake release to test new features/betas etc. my system: Ubuntu 21.04/x64, CMake 3.19.4/3.21.0, GCC 10.x Boost 1.75 (want to upgrade to 1.76 soon) my boost build: mkdir ~/dev/3rdparty-liux-gcc cd ~/dev/3rdparty-linux-gcc wget https://dl.bintray.com/boostorg/release/1.75.0/source/boost_1_75_0.tar.bz2 tar -xf boost_1_75_0.tar.bz2 ln -s boost_1_75_0 ./boost cd boost_1_75_0 ./bootstrap.sh ./b2 --toolset=gcc cxxflags=-fPIC --build-dir=./_build address-model=64 architecture=x86 link=static threading=multi --with-graph --with-nowide --with-test --width-config --with-system --with-filesystem --stagedir=./_x64 ln -s _x64/lib lib my simple test hierarchy: boost_using_cmake_tests boost_using_cmake_tests\_build boost_using_cmake_tests\boost_using_cmake boost_using_cmake_tests\boost_using_cmake\CMakeLists.txt cmake_minimum_required (VERSION 3.16) set(Boost_NO_BOOST_CMAKE TRUE) set(Boost_NO_SYSTEM_PATHS TRUE) project (using_boost_with_cmake) set( MY_THIRD_PARTY_LIBS "~/dev/3rdparty-linux-gcc" ) set( BOOST_ROOT ${MY_THIRD_PARTY_LIBS}/boost ) set( BOOST_INCLUDEDIR ${BOOST_ROOT}/boost) set( BOOST_LIBRARYDIR ${BOOST_ROOT}/lib) find_package(Boost REQUIRED COMPONENTS unit_test_framework filesystem system) cmake run: using 3.19.4 cmake without 1.75 support ~/dev/boost_using_cmake/_build$ ../../cmake-3.19.4-linux-x86_64/bin/cmake ../boost_using_cmake/ -- The C compiler identification is GNU 10.3.0 -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 10.3.0 -- Detecting C compiler ABI info -- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc - skipped -- Detecting C compile features -- Detecting C compile features - done -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done -- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ - skipped -- Detecting CXX compile features -- Detecting CXX compile features - done CMake Warning at /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1204 (message): New Boost version may have incorrect or missing dependencies and imported targets Call Stack (most recent call first): /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1326 (_Boost_COMPONENT_DEPENDENCIES) /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1935 (_Boost_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES) CMakeLists.txt:14 (find_package) CMake Warning at /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1204 (message): New Boost version may have incorrect or missing dependencies and imported targets Call Stack (most recent call first): /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1326 (_Boost_COMPONENT_DEPENDENCIES) /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1935 (_Boost_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES) CMakeLists.txt:14 (find_package) CMake Warning at /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1204 (message): New Boost version may have incorrect or missing dependencies and imported targets Call Stack (most recent call first): /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1326 (_Boost_COMPONENT_DEPENDENCIES) /home/linux/dev/cmake-3.19.4-Linux-x86_64/share/cmake-3.19/Modules/FindBoost.cmake:1935 (_Boost_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES) CMakeLists.txt:14 (find_package) -- Found Boost: /home/linux/dev/3rdparty-linux-gcc/boost (found version "1.75.0") found components: unit_test_framework filesystem system -- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /home/linux/dev/boost_using_cmake_tests/_build it works but cmake 3.19.4 is missing direct support for 1.75 so its some way "unsupported", cmake does not detect the correct lib names automaticly, only some styles are working etc. i've talked about the problem on the cmake forum and the answer was https://discourse.cmake.org/t/fail-to-use-self-build-boost-1-75-under-ubunt… Brad King: "...However, Boost upstream now provides a proper CMake package file BoostConfig.cmake which should work for using Boost in any layout..." 1.75 is now directly supported by cmake - but now i want to use 1.76 and the problem re-occures i've tried serveral things to force cmake to use the boost own package findings stuff without any success i hope its possible to use 1.75 and 1.76 in the future without always wait for cmake to support it directly any hints what changes are needed with my CMakeLists.txt to support boost own cmake package finding (and get rid of these problems)?

4 17

boost still supports C++03?
by Oliver Kowalke 19 Jul '21

19 Jul '21

Hi, does boost still support Cpp03 or is Cpp11 the min. standard? Oliver

6 10

[1.77][multi_index] post-beta merge request
by Joaquin M López Muñoz 17 Jul '21

17 Jul '21

Hi, I'd like to merge this commit (only testing code and docs affected): https://github.com/boostorg/multi_index/commit/3dad7f38a44783c297b2d477cba2… This is a trivial change for C++23 forward compatibility (and C++<23 UB avoidance), as explained in https://github.com/boostorg/multi_index/issues/45 Best, Joaquín M López Muñoz

2 2

Integrating Boost into client project build via FetchContent
by Stefan Heinzmann 16 Jul '21

16 Jul '21

Hi all, the recent activity regarding adding CMake support to some remaining libraries (many thanks go to Peter Dimov), encouraged me to try using FetchContent to integrate Boost into client projects. I'm sure many people are interested in such a possibility in order to reduce dependencies on the build environment. The brief result seems to be: It almost works. Enough to make it interesting. The reason for my message is to ask if this is supposed to work, i.e. if I am trying something that should work, either now or in the near future, or if it is a frivolous expectation on my part. A toy project's CMakeLists.txt might look like this: ============================================================= cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.21) project(boost_test) include(FetchContent) set(BOOST_ENABLE_CMAKE ON) FetchContent_Declare(build_boost GIT_REPOSITORY https://github.com/boostorg/boost.git GIT_TAG boost-1.77.0.beta1 ) FetchContent_GetProperties(build_boost) if(NOT build_boost_POPULATED) FetchContent_Populate(build_boost) add_subdirectory( ${build_boost_SOURCE_DIR} ${build_boost_BINARY_DIR} EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL ) endif() add_executable(boost_test boost_test.cpp) target_link_libraries(boost_test PRIVATE Boost::format) ============================================================= The corresponding source file would look like this: ============================================================= #include <boost/format.hpp> #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << boost::format("Hello %1%!") % "everybody"; } ============================================================= I used the CMake GUI version 3.21.0 on Windows 10 to configure the project for Visual Studio 2019 Release 16.10.3 with a 64-bit build. It produced lots of install-related errors in the generation phase, but it nevertheless pruduced a solution that successfully built the project. Now, there are of course a couple of issues, which I'd like to get your opinion on: 1. Optimized source download As listed, FetchContent pulls in the entire boost sources, regardless whether they're needed or not. This takes a significant amount of time and uses a lot of disk space for no benefit. Clearly, you would want to fetch only the sources you need, but there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle the dependencies between the various boost libraries. You could use the GIT_SUBMODULES option of FetchContent, but you'd need to list not only the libraries you directly use (Boost::format in my example above), but you also need to list the dependencies of those, which is tedious and brittle. I imagine that this can be handled via a special tool that gets invoked as a PATCH_COMMAND, which is able to scan through the submodules that have been populated and populates all its dependencies. I haven't seen such a tool anywhere, but maybe somebody has got a solution already? 2. Dealing with install Obviously, when using Boost like this, I don't want it to add installation items into the install of my own project, therefore I used the option EXCLUDE_FROM_ALL of add_subdirectory(). That doesn't eliminate all of the problems, as is evidenced by the myriad install-related errors that CMake flags up. Do you have an idea how to properly deal with that? I'm slightly out of my depth here. If you want to check this on your system, the CMake errors may prevent building. I have been able to build when generating a Visual Studio solution, but not when I openend the folder in Visual Studio directly, relying on Visual Studio's own CMake support. Of couse, if you have other suggestions, please tell! Cheers Stefan Heinzmann

2 1

[1.77] Requesting post-beta merges
by John Maddock 15 Jul '21

15 Jul '21

I have some late changes I'd like to merge to master if possible: For multiprecision, it's basically a single bug fix (for https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/issues/342) details here: https://github.com/boostorg/multiprecision/pull/344, note that the single CI failure is spurious. For Math, the collected changes are here: https://github.com/boostorg/math/pull/661 The really big changes here are documentation, the remaining issues fixed are documented in the PR above. There is one further change for Math, that I've neglected to cherry pick to the PR above, but it's this one: https://github.com/boostorg/math/pull/659 which fixes some invalid code that had slipped through. Many thanks! John. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

2 2

[1.77] Permission to merge to master
by Andrey Semashev 15 Jul '21

15 Jul '21

Hi, I'd like to merge the following changes to master: https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/commit/003f00239963e4b270a47d7e78664… https://github.com/boostorg/filesystem/commit/9e5a3e231e5a5d3c501447ca307a3… Fixes Boost.Filesystem compilation for Android and Mac OS. https://github.com/boostorg/utility/commit/6cca23a63a1c038b9afc261037548b78… Removes dependency of Boost.Utility on Boost.ContainerHash.

2 1

Master branch now closed for 1.77.0 beta release
by Marshall Clow 14 Jul '21

14 Jul '21

Please do not make any commits to the master branch. — Marshall

2 1

[release] Boost 1.77.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 14 Jul '21

14 Jul '21

Boost release 1.77.0 beta 1 is now available at: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/beta/1.77.0.beta1/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 1aba2bf9416d71026c9e6bbd10a2b7cfb31b0950baa7ad0861dfb74984d96bd9 boost_1_77_0_b1.zip 55126d149664541ffc9fd1f41b2ec67146d69bdab92e41da4bb8610b755ca9ec boost_1_77_0_b1.7z 1aabe7704e91f4f8d97b81d03ddc21c3396f4b72fc4041f01bfcfc128bac0d73 boost_1_77_0_b1.tar.gz 3d5801790c96d2bc9ed23372c4f9fd963bc2f39fe540e35d7b4fe586ba77dfa7 boost_1_77_0_b1.tar.bz2 For details of what's in the release, see <https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_77_0.html>. Please download the beta, give it a try, and report any problems you encounter. Thanks, -- The Boost Release Team

1 0

boost.python compilation error (newbie)
by maths soso 11 Jul '21

11 Jul '21

I'm new to boost, I decided installing it by following instructions provided at SO: https://stackoverflow.com/a/24086375/10213771 (The only difference is that I used version 1.76) Everything went fine, then I decided to compile this C++ file: char const* greet(){ return "hello, world";} #include <boost/python.hpp> BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(hello_ext){ using namespace boost::python; def("greet", greet);} Since boost.python is not header only library, I needed to link to it on compilation, I used the following compile command: g++ -I ~/Desktop/boost_1_76_0/ -I /usr/include/python2.7/ main.cpp -o prog ~/Desktop/boost_1_76_0/stage/lib/libboost_python27.a but I get the following errors: /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/Scrt1.o: in function `_start': (.text+0x24): undefined reference to `main' /usr/bin/ld: /home/sofiane/Desktop/boost_1_76_0/stage/lib/libboost_python27.a(registry.o): in function `boost::python::converter::registration::get_class_object() const': ... /usr/bin/ld: function_doc_signature.cpp:(.text+0x1de): undefined reference to `PyObject_IsTrue' /usr/bin/ld: function_doc_signature.cpp:(.text+0x23e): undefined reference to `PyInt_FromLong' /usr/bin/ld: function_doc_signature.cpp:(.text+0x28b): undefined reference to `PyInt_FromLong' ...

3 2

[release] Boost 1.77.0 Beta 1 Release Candidate 1 is available
by Marshall Clow 10 Jul '21

10 Jul '21

The first release candidates for the 1.77.0 beta release are now available at: https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/beta/1.77.0.beta1/source/ 1aba2bf9416d71026c9e6bbd10a2b7cfb31b0950baa7ad0861dfb74984d96bd9 boost_1_77_0_b1_rc1.zip 55126d149664541ffc9fd1f41b2ec67146d69bdab92e41da4bb8610b755ca9ec boost_1_77_0_b1_rc1.7z 1aabe7704e91f4f8d97b81d03ddc21c3396f4b72fc4041f01bfcfc128bac0d73 boost_1_77_0_b1_rc1.tar.gz 3d5801790c96d2bc9ed23372c4f9fd963bc2f39fe540e35d7b4fe586ba77dfa7 boost_1_77_0_b1_rc1.tar.bz2 The web site has NOT YET been updated. 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. -- The Release managers

3 3

The Master branch will be closing for the 1.77.0 beta release TODAY!
by Marshall Clow 07 Jul '21

07 Jul '21

If you have changes for the beta, they need to be merged to master today. See https://www.boost.org/development/index.html <https://www.boost.org/development/index.html> for the full calendar — The Release managers

1 0

The deadline for Major changes for Boost 1.77.0 is TODAY!
by Marshall Clow 04 Jul '21

04 Jul '21

See https://www.boost.org/development/index.html <https://www.boost.org/development/index.html> for the full calendar — The Release Managers

4 6