- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[test] linking issues on trunk
by Vicente J. Botet Escriba 04 Nov '12

04 Nov '12

Hi, I have found some linking issues (see bellow) with Boost.Test ubuntu gcc-4.4.6,gcc-4.6.1.0(c++0x),intel-12.1.3.0(c++0x). I'm linking with boost_unit_test_framework. Should other libraries be added? Best, Vicente P.S. This worked well before. time bjam --build-dir=/tmp/bin.v2 toolset=gcc-4.4.6,gcc-4.6.1.0x,intel-12.1.3.0x -q -d2 gcc.link /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_thread.test/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/test_thread "g++-4.4" -Wl,-R -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/chrono/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -Wl,-R -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/system/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -Wl,-R -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -Wl,-rpath-link -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/chrono/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -Wl,-rpath-link -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/system/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -Wl,-rpath-link -Wl,"/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi" -o "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_thread.test/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/test_thread" -Wl,--start-group "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_thread.test/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/test_thread.o" "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/chrono/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/libboost_chrono.so.1.52.0" "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a" "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/libboost_thread.so.1.52.0" "/tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/system/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/libboost_system.so.1.52.0" -Wl,-Bstatic -Wl,-Bdynamic -lrt -Wl,--end-group -g -pthread /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(unit_test_main.o): In function `boost::unit_test::unit_test_main(boost::unit_test::test_suite* (*)(int, char**), int, char**)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/unit_test_main.ipp:92: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `boost::unit_test::framework::impl::apply_filters(unsigned long)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:506: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:533: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:537: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:548: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o):/mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:603: more undefined references to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' follow /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `visit': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:686: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::decorator::for_test_unit::apply(boost::unit_test::test_unit&)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `boost::unit_test::framework::init(boost::unit_test::test_suite* (*)(int, char**), int, char**)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:691: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:698: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `boost::unit_test::framework::run(unsigned long, bool)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:1008: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:1045: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `boost::unit_test::ut_detail::label_filter::visit(boost::unit_test::test_unit const&)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:217: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::test_unit::has_label(boost::unit_test::basic_cstring<char const>) const' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(framework.o): In function `boost::unit_test::ut_detail::remove_disabled::visit(boost::unit_test::test_unit const&)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/framework.ipp:300: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(progress_monitor.o): In function `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(boost::unit_test::test_unit const&, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/tree/traverse.hpp:46: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(boost::unit_test::test_case const&, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/tree/traverse.hpp:48: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(boost::unit_test::test_suite const&, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/test/build/gcc-4.4.6/debug/link-static/threading-multi/libboost_unit_test_framework.a(results_reporter.o): In function `boost::unit_test::results_reporter::make_report(boost::unit_test::report_level, unsigned long)': /mnt/boost/trunk/libs/thread/test/../../../boost/test/impl/results_reporter.ipp:181: undefined reference to `boost::unit_test::traverse_test_tree(unsigned long, boost::unit_test::test_tree_visitor&, bool)' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status ...failed gcc.link /tmp/bin.v2/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/test_thread.test/gcc-4.4.6/debug/threading-multi/test_thread... ...failed updating 1 target...

2 1

[website] Wrong library name
by Michel Morin 04 Nov '12

04 Nov '12

Boost.Iterator is listed as "Iterators" (note the plural form) in * http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/ * trunk/boost/libs/libraries.htm But it should be "Iterator". Regards, Michel

1 0

[variant] awkward recursion
by Dave Abrahams 03 Nov '12

03 Nov '12

I've been playing around with variant a bit and decided to try to build a data structure for storing json. I came up with several different approaches but none are super-satisfying. I'd like some feedback. (If you need a refresher on what's in json, the front page of http://json.org tells all). In the abstract, json looks like: struct null {}; typedef std::map<std::string, value> object; typedef std::vector<value> array; typedef variant< null, std::string, double, object, array, bool > value; Naturally, this code isn't legal C++, so I set about making it be. The first thing I tried was to use recursive_wrapper<>, as the documentation implies it is the most flexible way to do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, there's no clean way to reformulate this type in a way that allows recursive_wrapper work, because the type that needs to be wrapped in recursive_wrapper includes "value" in its name, and I can't forward-declare it. The only way to forward-declare a type X, as far as I know, is: struct X; // or class X; So to try to get recursive_wrapper to work, I tried a couple of formulations that started with that, but it turns out that when you do this, you end up not needing recursive_wrapper at all struct value; typedef std::map<std::string, value> object; typedef std::vector<value> array; typedef variant< null, std::string, double, object, array, bool > value_base; struct value : value_base { value() {}; template <class T> value(T const& x) : base(x) {} // no move; I'm in C++03-land value& operator=(value const& x) { base::operator=(x); return *this; } } }; I don't know if I've missed some things that should be in that "value" class. I know that a recursive variant, in principle, requires a pointer indirection somewhere, so I was wondering if, had I wrapped object and array in recursive_wrapper as below, I would have been adding an unnecessary inefficiency. typedef variant< null, std::string, double, reference_wrapper<object>, reference_wrapper<array>, bool > value_base; I also wondered whether that would give me different results from typedef std::map<std::string, value> object; typedef std::vector<value> array; typedef variant< null, std::string, double, std::map<std::string, reference_wrapper<value> >, std::vector<reference_wrapper<value> >, bool > value_base; and which one was better. Does anyone know? I think that should be in the docs. Using recursive_variant_ works out quite nicely, except that it doesn't allow me to separately declare "object" and "array" and re-use them in the definition of "value": typedef boost::make_recursive_variant< null , std::string , double , std::map<std::string, boost::recursive_variant_> , std::vector<boost::recursive_variant_> , bool >::type value; I also wonder if I'm getting an unnecessary inefficiency in that case. Lastly, what flexibility am I sacrificing by using this approach? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

9 28

[1.52.0] Release candidates available
by Marshall Clow 03 Nov '12

03 Nov '12

Release candidate files for 1.52.0 are available at http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ 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. This helps ensure the candidates build OK before we push them out to SourceForge. Thanks, -- Marshall

5 5

New Stepanov lecture videos released by A9
by Mat Marcus 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

http://www.youtube.com/user/A9Videos/videos?flow=grid&view=1

1 0

[string_algo] Documentation Complaint
by Dave Abrahams 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

Wow, I found this documentation hard to use! I wanted to translate various 1-character substrings into new strings, e.g. translate the TAB character ('\t') to its textual escaped representation "\\t", and I went looking for an algorithm to do it. After 5 minutes of searching, I *think* the algorithm isn't there, but I'm still not sure. I nearly went blind (well, not really, but it felt that way) looking at http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/doc/html/string_algo/reference.html#he… because there's no vertical whitespace. More importantly, there's *no description of what any of these algorithms actually do*! ... calming down ... Heh, very terse descriptions are in the "Quick Reference": http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/doc/html/string_algo/quickref.html These might be good enough for me, but I always figure I'm going to get complete detail from the non-quick reference, and this one is just a dump of all the declarations, so I had to go around in a big circle and begin writing this documentation complaint before I found it. Can this situation be improved? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

2 2

[Variant] Documentation Questions/Notes
by Dave Abrahams 02 Nov '12

02 Nov '12

- What does this mean? Full value semantics, including adherence to standard overload resolution rules for conversion operations. Seems to me that it's impossible *not* to adhere to any standard rules. Is the part after the comma vacuous? - The "temporary heap backup" technique seems to have a hole: 1. Copy-construct the content of the left-hand side to the heap; call the pointer to this data backup. 2. Destroy the content of the left-hand side. 3. Copy-construct the content of the right-hand side in the (now-empty) storage of the left-hand side. 4. In the event of failure, copy backup to the left-hand side storage. 5. In the event of success, deallocate the data pointed to by backup. What happens in the event of a failure in step 4? - I note the section on motivation doesn't mention the new capabilities of C++11 unions. Now some of the constructs are possible... *if* you do all the bookeeping yourself. - I note that the implementation has at least some support for move semantics and yet the docs require all elements to be "bounded types", which in turn are required to be CopyConstructible. Is that accurate, or outdated? - "completeness at the point of template instantiation" is a rather odd thing to put in a concept. I suggest that that should be just part of the requirements on the variant template rather than on BoundedType. - Do the semantics for are_strict_equals at http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/doc/html/variant/tutorial.html differ from those of the built-in equality operator? - it might be worth making the point that recursive variants offer the ability to define complex linked data structures *as value types* in a type- and memory-safe manner. I.e. no explicit handling of pointers; copy construction and assignment "just work," etc. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

3 5

[optional] Doc Nit
by Dave Abrahams 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

> A typical approach is to consider the existence of a > valid return value as a postcondition, so that if the > function cannot compute the value to return, it has > either undefined behavior (and can use assert in a > debug build) or uses a runtime check and throws an > exception if the postcondition is violated. This is a > reasonable choice for example, for function (A), This is possibly technically correct, but confusing. Undefined behavior results from precondition violations, not postcondition violations. I'd suggest: One approach is to make a non-negative argument a precondition, so when violated the function has undefined behavior (and can use assert in a debug build). Alternatively, one can use a runtime check and specify that an exception is thrown if the postcondition cannot be satisfied. These are a reasonable choice for example, for function (A), I'm not sure the first sentence is quite right for your needs, but I'm out of time to improve it further. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

2 1

Re: [boost] make_shared_array and allocate_shared_array
by Glen Fernandes 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

On Thu Nov 1 2012 at 1:48 PM, Olaf van der Spek <ml(a)vdspek.org> wrote: > Does Glen's make_shared_array have variants for both initialized and uninitialized allocations (for builtin types)? Hi Olaf, I just updated the code to only have initialization for non POD types: https://github.com/glenfe/glenfern/commit/05ea1f429bddfe7f07e4bb392db248492… Glen

1 0

Review: Code Review: allocate_shared_array and make_shared_array
by Glen Fernandes 01 Nov '12

01 Nov '12

A big thank you to Peter Dimov who has been kind enough to review my code. The open question we both have is whether these functions should continue to return shared_ptr<T> or be changed to return shared_array<T> after some modification to shared_array (both to support construction from (or conversion to) a shared_ptr and to have things like a no-throw constructor). Updated code: https://github.com/glenfe/glenfern/tree/master/boost Original blog post: http://glenfernandes.wordpress.com/ Some context from our discussion: Peter Dimov wrote: > Providing two separate sets of functions doesn't appeal to me much. > make_shared_array should return whatever we decide they should return. You > are right about shared_array's default constructor though, and maybe we can > use this opportunity to fix it (and add move support), and perhaps provide a > way for people to get a shared_ptr from a shared_array, if they have to work > with other people who only use that in their APIs. :-) > > Let's see what the Boost list will say. > > Glen Fernandes wrote: > > 1. I keep the functions returning shared_ptr but rename them to > > allocate_shared_sequence and make_shared_sequence. I think they are still > > useful for people who would want to avoid shared_array in their APIs for > > various reasons (e.g. its default constructor can throw). > >

1 0