- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[exception] error: looser throw specifier
by Niklas Angare 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

On QNX 6.6.0 with GCC 4.7.3 and Dinkumware library in -std=gnu++0x mode, I get the following error: ../libs/exception/test/throw_exception_test.cpp:21:1: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual exception2::~exception2()' In file included from ../libs/exception/test/helper2.hpp:9:0, from ../libs/exception/test/throw_exception_test.cpp:6: ../boost/exception/exception.hpp:303:5: error: overriding 'virtual boost::exception::~exception() throw ()' libs/exception/test/throw_exception_test.cpp has these definitions: struct exception1: std::exception {}; struct exception2: std::exception, boost::exception {}; There is no error for exception1. Is the bug in the Boost library, the test, the compiler or the Dinkumware library? Other regression runners with GCC 4.7 don't get the error. My regression test runner is NA-QNX660-x86 so you can see all details in the result matrix. Regards, Niklas Angare

1 0

Re: [boost] invalid access to stack memory?
by alexc 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

Original Message Sender:Bjorn Reese via Boostboost(a)lists.boost.org Recipient:boostboost@lists.boost.org Cc:Bjorn Reesebreese(a)mail1.stofanet.dk Date:Saturday, Feb 11, 2017 19:39 Subject:Re: [boost] invalid access to stack memory? On 02/11/2017 08:47 AM, alexc via Boost wrote: followed detail of the case, an object constructor store this pointer to a static variable. could it be a problem? From a quick look at the code, I do not think that it poses a problem. The idea, as I understand it, is to use RAII to push and pop a "stack frame" (call_stackT::context) onto a thread-local static "stack" (call_stackT::top_.) The context destructor will remove itself from the "stack". Oh, context class “recover” thecall_stackT::top_ indestructor, I miss this in the first place, thank you, Bjorn, it’s a very cool idea to me. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

1 0

Re: [boost] invalid access to stack memory?
by Bjorn Reese 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

On 02/11/2017 08:47 AM, alexc via Boost wrote: > followed detail of the case, an object constructor store this pointer to a static variable. could it be a problem? From a quick look at the code, I do not think that it poses a problem. The idea, as I understand it, is to use RAII to push and pop a "stack frame" (call_stack<T>::context) onto a thread-local static "stack" (call_stack<T>::top_.) The context destructor will remove itself from the "stack".

1 0

invalid access to stack memory?
by alexc 11 Feb '17

11 Feb '17

Hi all, followed detail of the case, an object constructor store this pointer to a static variable. could it be a problem? detail/call_stack.hpp explicit context(Key* k) : key_(k), next_(call_stackKey, Value::top_) { value_ = reinterpret_castunsigned char*(this); call_stackKey, Value::top_ = this; // == store this to a static variable } detail/impl/strand_service.ipp void strand_service::do_complete(io_service_impl* owner, operation* base, const boost::system::error_code ec, std::size_t /*bytes_transferred*/) { if (owner) { strand_impl* impl = static_caststrand_impl*(base); // Indicate that this strand is executing on the current thread. call_stackstrand_impl::context ctx(impl); // == local variable ctx, its this pointer will be stroed in a static variable. Regards, Alex

1 0

Review Request : Boost.SIMD
by Joel FALCOU 10 Feb '17

10 Feb '17

Can Boost.SIMD please be added to the review queue? Michael Caisse has volunteered to act as the review manager. Boost.SIMD is an efficient modern C++ wrapper for SIMD instructiosn sets and computations that aims at providing a standard way to write code taking advantages of SIMD enabled hardwares. Boost.SIMD repository https://github.com/NumScale/boost.simd Documentation https://developer.numscale.com/boost.simd/documentation/develop/ Thanks in advance Joel Falcou - CTO @ NumScale

6 8

Testing DMARC spam binning
by Niall Douglas 10 Feb '17

10 Feb '17

Dear Boost, You all probably noticed that boost-dev now sends you emails from "Your Name via Boost <boost(a)lists.boost.org>" with your original email listed as CC. This should finally mean that DMARC protected email addresses are no longer flagged as Spam by many email services, including this email from me, as boost-dev is no longer sending email with a protected From: address. The list should be made aware that fixing this has taken nine months or so for good reason. A whole ton of work went into making this happen, not least relocating Boost's mailing list services from wowbagger where it had been for almost forever to new hosting partially donated to us for free. What wasn't obvious here was that there were problems of ownership transfer, arranging service donation and the change over and getting many, many long seized up cogs to turn, ones indeed I have failed to turn in many years of trying myself. The fact it all happened without service interruption is an amazing achievement. I'd like to ask the list to formally thank Michael Caisse and his team of many diligent workers who did all of this just to get mail posted here to not get flagged as Spam (there were other motivating factors too of course, but the Spam issue got the ball rolling). It was an awful lot of work for not a very obvious gain here on boost-dev. So thank you. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/

2 1

Re: [boost] Requirements: min and max macros
by Bjorn Reese 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

On 02/05/2017 06:15 PM, Vinnie Falco wrote: > From > http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Naming > > "Make sure your code compiles in the presence of the min() and max() > macros. Some platform headers define min() and max()macros which cause > some common C++ constructs to fail to compile. Some simple tricks can > protect your code from inappropriate macro substitution:..." Is this guideline still relevant?

4 4

[gsoc17] Attn: We need 2017 mentors and project ideas for Boost!
by Niall Douglas 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

Dear Boost community, We are now a few weeks from the beginning of Google Summer of Code 2017! Last year we had the big surprise of being rejected by Google as an org, the second time ever, on the basis that Google felt we needed a year off. Thanks to the quick actions of the Boost Steering Committee and IMC Financial Markets we managed to put together a "Boost Summer of Code" so the students with projects in progress would not be left stranded. Despite a fair few teething problems, I think that worked out okay. As part of filling in our application for 2017, we must supply to Google a list of potential GSoC mentors and potential GSoC projects for summer 2017 in order to be approved as an organisation this year. Therefore a lengthy page of awesome project ideas at https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/SoC2017 before *February 9th* would be an enormous help to getting us approved again this year and bringing to Boost another US$35,000 of Google funding. If you think yourself able to mentor a student doing some work on Boost this summer, *please* consider adding a description of the proposed work item and your name to the list. The year before last we had more slots awarded to us by Google than we had good combinations of student and mentor, so we had to return slots which I believe has not happened here at Boost GSoC in at least a decade. That means that your project ideas have a better chance than ever of receiving funding if you can find a good student, and that is best done by getting project ideas floated *early*. If you want to know more about mentoring a Google Summer of Code funded student work before you nominate yourself, please feel free to ask on the main Boost developers mailing list boost(a)lists.boost.org or via gsoc-admin(a)boost.org. Thank you in advance for your time.

1 1

[interprocess] Fix doc build ASAP
by Rene Rivera 07 Feb '17

07 Feb '17

This commit < https://github.com/boostorg/interprocess/commit/936afb13f0c106728bcf36c1ce1…> seems to have broken the release archive documentation build: Generating Output File: /home/ubuntu/build/boost/bin.v2/libs/interprocess/doc/docbook/gcc-4.9.2/debug/interprocess.xml /home/ubuntu/boost/libs/interprocess/doc/interprocess.qbk:7421: error: Mismatched [endsect] near column 9. Error: Error count: 1. Please fix 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 1

[GIL] Bringing old bug fixes on development branch into regular boost releases
by Marcel Metz 06 Feb '17

06 Feb '17

Hello boost devs, I'm a user of the Boost.GIL library and maintained a fork inside inside another project because GIL lacked some features at that time this project needs. This GIL fork happened with boost release 1.37. After reviewing the changes recently it turned out that those can be implemented without maintaining a dedicated GIL fork. However when building the project with the upstream GIL library some compiler specific build bugs popped up. It seems like the forked GIL version already had fixes for those whereas the upstream Boost.GIL doesn't. Further investigation showed that some of those were fixed years ago in the GIL development branch, but never made it back into the master branch (and as far as I understand master is used for release tags). All of those were reported: #3908 - using boost::gil fails when upgrading to libpng-1.4.0 #7270 - C++11 narrowing problem in gil #8896 - image_view compile error under clang 3.1 #9517 - boost gil compile error because of type narrowing (dup of #7270) Is it possible for the maintainer to cherry-pick the corresponding commits from development onto master and put them into the next boost release or are there other steps involved that prevent the bug fix inclusion? Regards Marcel

2 1