- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[iostreams] Custom allocator support for compression filters
by Daniel Boehme 04 Sep '24

04 Sep '24

Hello everyone, I'm currently looking into custom allocators with the boost::iostreams::gzip_compressor and now need some help understanding why the code is the way it is. My problem is that I need to control how zlib internally de-/allocates memory. It seems to have support for using custom de-/allocation functions. And iostreams seems to have used it some time ago. However, passing the custom allocator to zlib has been disabled in this commit: https://github.com/boostorg/iostreams/commit/95baf782098f0dee00cc7ca6f62b9b… Does anyone happen to know what has been non-conforming and why it was disabled? I could not find any information about that in the code, on the mailing lists, or anywhere else in the internet. I'm tempted to submit a patch that enables it, but for that I need to understand the reasons behind that deliberate decision. Any hint is welcome. Thank you very much. Daniel B?hme

2 1

[boost.cobalt] Cobalt not building with b2 on Windows
by Andreas Weis 02 Sep '24

02 Sep '24

Hi everyone, It's my understanding that Cobalt is *not* a header-only library, yet it seems that it is not built as part of the b2 build. I'm building Boost with b2 on Windows (MSVC 2022, version 19.41) and it seems that Cobalt is not being built properly. I am using the following command line: b2 --toolset=msvc-14.3 --build-type=complete architecture=x86 address-model=64 --stagedir=stage -j 8 As far as I can tell, this works correctly for all libraries except Cobalt. While b2 does list cobalt as part of the "Component configuration" listing in the output: - atomic : building - charconv : building - chrono : building - cobalt : building [...] But I get neither binaries nor a folder cmake/boost_cobalt* with this. It also seems that the Cobalt binaries are not part of the distribution at https://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/files/boost-binaries/. Am I doing something wrong? Is Cobalt supposed to be part of the b2 build or is there another way to consume the non-header-only parts of the library? Best regards, Andreas

3 3

Boost.Compute broken in 1.86.0 because of UUID changes, 1.86.1?
by Peter Dimov 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Because Boost.Compute (boost/compute/detail/sha1.hpp) uses an implementation detail of Boost.UUID (boost/uuid/detail/sha1.hpp), and because I changed the implementation to fix an endianness issue, <boost/compute.hpp> now causes a compile error in 1.86.0, as reported in https://github.com/boostorg/uuid/issues/166 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/888 https://github.com/boostorg/compute/issues/889 Users are demanding we issue a point release to fix this. It will have to include https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/887 and https://github.com/boostorg/compute/pull/893 What do release managers think?

10 14

Inter pod communication using shared memory
by Murali Bathina 30 Aug '24

30 Aug '24

Hi all, Is Boost supports inter pod communication using shared memory or other ways like boost interprocess communication. Looking inputs on this. Regards, Murali ________________________________ This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any review, use or distribution of this information is absolutely prohibited and we request that you delete all copies in your control and contact us by e-mailing to security(a)mavenir.com. This message contains the views of its author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Mavenir Systems, Inc. or its affiliates, who employ systems to monitor email messages, but make no representation that such messages are authorized, secure, uncompromised, or free from computer viruses, malware, or other defects. Thank You

4 6

glibc version mismatches in CI
by Jeff Trull 28 Aug '24

28 Aug '24

Hi folks, While reviewing the Modular Boost changes for Wave I noticed that our CI is now failing - and we're not alone in this. It looks like the version of glibc in some of the old Ubuntu containers, which are required to compile against old versions of gcc, is incompatible with the Node executable that runs actions/checkout@v2 (and 3 and 4). You might see errors like this: /__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.28' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node) The Github blog discusses the change here <https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-ru…> At least one brave pioneer, Andrey Semashev, has made updates to make CI green again in a handful of libraries, but I haven't seen it discussed on the list. Is there a fix other than "rewrite using manual checkout"? I managed to implement the workaround described in the blog post by adding these lines close to the top of ci.yml: env: ACTIONS_ALLOW_USE_UNSECURE_NODE_VERSION: true Though it seems unwise to rely on in the long run. Best, Jeff

5 5

Governance review
by David Sankel 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

The Boost Foundation approved the following motion relating to using the library review process for the governance/fiscal entity decision with 8 in favor and 0 against. MOTION: Support handling the governance question with the following process recommendations: - There should be a period (maybe a month) with a request for proposals. - These proposals should answer questions such as “What problems is this organizational change attempting to solve? How is this in line with Boost’s mission and values? What will the impact be for current volunteers? How does this proposal meet the changing needs of the Boost and wider C++ communities? What risks are there with this approach and how can they be mitigated? How will the greater C++ community react to this development?” - Proposal writers are encouraged to publish their proposals early and use feedback to refine them until the official review period is underway. - The proposals should be specific about how expenses will be financed, how decisions are made, and how decision makers will be put in place. - For fiscal entities, structure and bylaws should be stated. - All proposals should be reviewed during the same period. - The greater C++ community should be aware and invited to participate in the discussion. - The review period should be 20 days. - We want this to be a civil discussion and encourage everyone to make this a reality. Presume that others in the discussion are acting in good faith. -- David

6 7

Request for information regarding the Boost Foundation
by Robert Ramey 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

checking the Boost Foundation website I find some information such as https://sites.google.com/boost.org/boost-foundation/contact which lists the board of directors. Is there more complete information such as: a) link to legal documents such as articles of incorporation, 501(c)3 non-profit paperwork etc? b) Bylaws which among other things would describe the procedure for selection of members of the board, listing what the powers of the board are, etc. c) financial statements for recent years d) List of financial oblications that the foundation has committed to e) any other useful stuff Robert Ramey

3 2

Getting Started with Modular Boost Library Maintenance
by Alain O' Miniussi 26 Aug '24

26 Aug '24

Hi At the bottom of "https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Getting-Started%3A-Overview" (why the 2 "wiki"?) there is a "Getting Started with Modular Boost Library Maintenance" link pointing to missing https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/StartModMaint. Where is the page gone ? Thanks ---- Alain Miniussi DSI, Pôles Calcul et Genie Log. Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur Tél. : +33609650665

2 2

Stewardship Review Request
by Vinnie Falco 21 Aug '24

21 Aug '24

Recently the Boost Foundation offered the community two choices of organizations for stewardship of Boost's shared resources: itself, and The C++ Alliance. The project needs a decision, in order that its future may be determined. The Formal Review Process is typically called upon to answer the question of whether a library should be accepted into the collection. I have proposed that we use the same process to determine the question of stewardship. It is not perfect, yet it is both familiar and enduring. Although there are two designated review wizards, one is unavailable and the other is traveling. And review wizards have never been called upon to oversee non-library reviews. Therefore, I would like to add a formal review to the calendar for the following days, inclusive: Monday August 19, to Wednesday, August 28 Here are some review managers who I believe are well-suited for the task: Ion Gatzanaga John Maddock Glen Fernandes Peter Dimov If Glen or Peter accept, it would be appropriate for them to first resign from the Boost Foundation board. Thanks

18 41

Modular Boost building next steps.
by René Ferdinand Rivera Morell 19 Aug '24

19 Aug '24

After some weeks of testing and addressing review comments from authors I have now marked PRs for supporting modular building and use of 156 Boost libraries. There are 2 libraries (multiprecision and utility) that are not ready yet, as they depend on other PRs. After the testing and review I've also concluded that authors (and owners) can merge all ready PRs without waiting for the tool specific PRs. It turned out there were no dependency issues between them. Hence the process is now: * The 1.86 release happened!! * Authors further review and merge the ready PRs. * I fix any fallout from that. * I create subsequent PRs for the global B2 Boost build infrastructure to remove the old non-modular dead code. * I fix any fallout from that. * The 1.87 release happens. Thank you everyone for the help so far. In particular Peter Dimov and Andrey Semashev for the many early comments across various PRs that helped me work out the kinks of the draft PRs. -- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

2 2