- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

boost build with emscripten
by Emil Dotchevski 23 Jan '17

23 Jan '17

I see that there is now emscripten support in boost build but it doesn't seem to work for me. After installing emscripten on Windows, adding using emscripten ; in my site-config.jam, then running b2 from the emscripten command prompt, I get the output below. Any help greatly appreciated! Emil boost-build/src/build\property.jam:743: in class(a)property-map.find from module object(property-map)@26 error: Ambiguous key boost-build/src/build\type.jam:333: in generated-target-ps from module type boost-build/src/build\type.jam:270: in type.generated-target-suffix from module type boost-build/src/build\virtual-target.jam:509: in virtual-target.add-prefix-and-suffix from module virtual-target boost-build/src/build\virtual-target.jam:468: in _adjust-name from module object(file-target)@3764 boost-build/src/build\virtual-target.jam:253: in abstract-file-target.__init__ from module object(file-target)@3764 boost-build/src/build\virtual-target.jam:561: in class(a)file-target.__init__ from module object(file-target)@3764 boost-build/src/kernel\class.jam:90: in class.new from module class boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:558: in generated-targets from module object(C-compiling-generator)@138 boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:453: in construct-result from module object(C-compiling-generator)@138 boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:412: in run-really from module object(C-compiling-generator)@138 boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:386: in class(a)generator.run from module object(C-compiling-generator)@138 boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:994: in try-one-generator-really from module generators boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:1056: in try-one-generator from module generators boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:1294: in construct-really from module generators boost-build/src/build\generators.jam:1378: in generators.construct from module generators boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:1553: in construct from module object(typed-target)@3554 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:1353: in class(a)basic-target.generate from module object(typed-target)@3554 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:774: in generate-really from module object(main-target)@3735 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:746: in class(a)main-target.generate from module object(main-target)@3735 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:895: in targets.generate-from-reference from module targets boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:1266: in generate-dependencies from module object(typed-target)@2173 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:1323: in class(a)basic-target.generate from module object(typed-target)@2173 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:774: in generate-really from module object(main-target)@2988 boost-build/src/build\targets.jam:746: in class(a)main-target.generate from module object(main-target)@2988 boost-build/src\build-system.jam:714: in load from module build-system NT\..\..\munch\boost-build\src\kernel\modules.jam:295: in import from module modules NT\..\..\munch\boost-build\src\kernel\bootstrap.jam:139: in boost-build from module NT\..\..\munch\boost-build.jam:6: in module scope from module

3 8

Re: [boost] [interprocess] Getting boot-up time is unreliable on Windows
by Ion Gaztañaga 23 Jan '17

23 Jan '17

On 22/12/2016 10:01, Thomas Dahms wrote: > Dear developers, dear Ion, > > We are experiencing issues on Windows where boost::interprocess relies > on a certain event in the system event log to get the system's boot-up > time. This has proven to be unreliable, because that event is not always > present in the log. In that case, initialization of boost::interprocess > fails. > Several bug reports exist for that issue, e.g. [1, 2]. > > Report [1] contains a proposed fix to use GetTickCount64() and there is > an open PR with an alternative fix to fall back to WMI mechanisms [3]. I > understand that the fix [1] would need some polishing, because > GetTickCount64() is not available in pre-Vista. > > Nevertheless, both proposed fixes have been uncommented and unconsidered > for a while now. Is there any chance that the maintainers could look > into this? Thanks for the ping. I don't think GetTickCount64 is very reliable, as other methods also have problems with time correction, hibernation, fast bootup, etc. In [1] one the last bootup log is lost new processes won't be able to communicate with others. The same happens with [3] In http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/interprocess/acknowledgements… there are some instructions to give up on kernel persistence and define the directory at compile time or run-time. This is the best workaround so far. I've trying to find a solution with no luck. I tried: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters\BootId in modern Windows systems but hybrid shutdown (default since Windows 8) does not seem to update it as kernel is suspended. Searching for a unique bootup id in windows that does not suffer when hibernating or correcting the RTC is really complicated. Any suggestion welcomed. Best, Ion

2 1

[serialization][test] failures in serialization causing regressions
by Barend Gehrels 21 Jan '17

21 Jan '17

Hi, The regression matrix in develop of Boost.Geometry contains many new compilation failures due to: 1) : D:\t08\run\boost_root\boost/serialization/array.hpp(25) : error C2039: 'array' : is not a member of 'std' 2): ../boost/numeric/ublas/storage.hpp: In member function ???void boost::numeric::ublas::unbounded_array<T, ALLOC>::serialize(Archive&, unsigned int)???: ../boost/numeric/ublas/storage.hpp:331:18: error: ???make_array??? is not a member of ???boost::serialization??? ar & serialization::make_array(data_, s);and a The master is still OK. Can this be solved? Regards, Barend

6 9

Boost Cmake Modules
by Paul Fultz II 20 Jan '17

20 Jan '17

Hi All, So I would like to start work with adding support for cmake to boost libraries. To make the boilerplate needed to write some of the cmake, I wrote BCM(Boost Cmake Modules), here: https://boost-cmake.github.io/bcm/doc/html/ Of course, the documentation is still a WIP. The core part is bcm_boost_package. So to write cmake for a library, you would just write something like this: bcm_boost_package(core VERSION 1.0 DEPENDS config ) It also provides a mechanism to add tests as well. My goal at first would be to update libraries on per-module level(one PR at a time). So to use cmake, the user wold build and install each library individually with cmake. Later, we can update the cmake modules to support superproject building(which may be necessary for libraries that have circular dependencies). Right now, there are no modules for building documentation. This can be added later, as well. So does anyone have any feedback on this setup? If you had ideas, or would like to help update boost libraries, contributions are welcome. Thanks, Paul

6 13

Testing issues
by Belcourt, Kenneth 19 Jan '17

19 Jan '17

Hi, Tests seem to have stopped cycling, and I see this error in the nightly testing output: error: Cannot create link ../../../boost_root/boost/process.hpp to ../../../boost_root/libs/process/include/boost/process.hpp. error: Link previously defined to another file, ../../../boost_root/libs/proccess/include/boost/process.hpp. # Searching for "process_jam_log" in "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression/stage/bin"... Traceback (most recent call last): File "run.py", line 71, in <module> runner(root) File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 287, in __init__ self.main() File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 624, in main getattr(self,action_m)() File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 581, in command_regression self.command_setup() File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 352, in command_setup self.build_if_needed(self.process_jam_log,self.pjl_toolset) File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 715, in build_if_needed tool[ 'build_path' ] = self.tool_path( tool ) File "/scratch/kbelco/boost_testing/boost_regression_src/regression.py", line 740, in tool_path , '\n'.join( [ name_or_spec[ 'path' ], build_dir ] ) Exception: Cannot find "process_jam_log" in any of the following locations: Does this problem look familiar to anyone? —- Noel

3 3

[asio] doc format changed?
by Vinnie Falco 19 Jan '17

19 Jan '17

Why did the formatting for Boost.Asio documentation change from 1.61 to 1.63? Compare: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_63_0/doc/html/boost_asio.html This looks like it was unintended, and its screwing up search engines (try searching for "Boost Asio 1.63.0 Reference" -- Follow me on Github: https://github.com/vinniefalco

4 9

[Interprocess] move semantics for intrusive_ptr
by Mikolaj Krzewicki 19 Jan '17

19 Jan '17

Dear all, would it be possible to add the rvalue operators to interprocess::intrusive_ptr akin to what is already available in "regular" boost::intrusive_ptr: // Move support #if !defined( BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES ) intrusive_ptr(intrusive_ptr && rhs) BOOST_NOEXCEPT : px( rhs.px ) { rhs.px = 0; } intrusive_ptr & operator=(intrusive_ptr && rhs) BOOST_NOEXCEPT { this_type( static_cast< intrusive_ptr && >( rhs ) ).swap(*this); return *this; } #endif many thanks, Mikolaj

2 1

[outcome] "sea of noexcept, islands of throwing"
by Andrzej Krzemienski 18 Jan '17

18 Jan '17

Niall, I moved this to another thread, as I believe it is quite independent of the documentation review. I am trying to understand the concept of "sea of noexcept, islands of throwing", and its significance. First, is this programming technique the primary motivation for Boost.Outcome? In the docs, I only saw a small mention of it, but from your replies it looks like this is an important part of the library. But I might be wrong. This "sea and islands" are quite similar to what is described in P0364R0 ("Report on Exception Handling Lite (Disappointment) from SG14"). The authors argue that if the exception control flow is indicated explicitly, the compiler has a better chance of performing optimizations. I understand that your goal (with the Outcome library) is to offer something more modest, but implementable in C++. You are saying, that the C++ compiler can implement similar optimizations, provided that all the try-catch-throw flows are confined to one translation unit. Did I get it right? The authors of P0364R0 claim that in some business domains, like video games, if you encounter a failure to acquire resources, you might as well terminate the program. For this reason RAII is not really that important there: you want to shut down the app rather than clean up and continue. Is it also what you are saying? Do you also intend to support something like 'panic mode' in Rust? I do not know Rust, but I understand that this 'panic mode' is shut down the program but with resource cleanup. Sorry, my questions are quite random. But I am trying to understand the idea. Regards, &rzej;

3 7

Generating Boost documentation with pandoc
by Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira 18 Jan '17

18 Jan '17

Has anyone tried to generate Boost-styled documentation using pandoc? I never fully liked PDF documentation because I never actually print documentation. However, a few weeks ago I got an ebook reader and I've been fascinated by the ePUB format. I'm using it to read even the IETF's RFCs and it's very pleasant. I'm using ePUB to read files even on my usual laptop. Anyway, I was wondering how nice would be to have an ePUB file containing the whole Boost documentation. pandoc has docbook support as one of its input formats and is capable of generating great ePUB output. -- Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira https://vinipsmaker.github.io/

7 27

[outcome] Added LEWG expected<T, E> implementation, what about the tutorial?
by Niall Douglas 17 Jan '17

17 Jan '17

Quite a bit of feedback from here, from SG14 and from Reddit expressed disappointment that Outcome doesn't implement the LEWG expected<T, E>. basic_monad makes implementing a fully compliant expected<T, E> just a few hours of work, so I went ahead and added one today and you can see its reference docs at https://ned14.github.io/boost.outcome/group__expected.html. These are the known deviations from the LEWG proposal: * P0323R1 doesn't yet specify what will be done if you try accessing an expected which is valueless due to exception. We throw a bad_expected_access<void> in this situation as that seemed sensible. If the LEWG proposal decides on something different, this implementation will change to track the LEWG proposal. * unexpected_type<E> is implemented as an expected<void, E> and it lets the basic_monad machinery do the implicit conversion to some expected<T, E>. * Types T and E cannot be constructible into one another. * expected<T, E> defaults E to error_code_extended. If you don't like this, predefine the BOOST_OUTCOME_EXPECTED_DEFAULT_ERROR_TYPE macro. * The ordering operators are not implemented due to https://akrzemi1.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/a-gotcha-with-optional/ So now you get in Outcome expected<T, E>; option<T>, result<T> and outcome<T>. And the Expected implementation ought to be drop in compatible with any future C++ 20 standard. How would people prefer the Outcome tutorial to now go? Should it mention expected<T, E> at all? Or should it get its own tutorial page (which will look very similar to the tutorial for result<T>). Which order should they be in? Is expected<T, E> easier than outcomes or the other way round? Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

1 0