- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

Downloads of boost from Bintray.com are temporarily unavailable
by Marshall Clow 30 May '19

30 May '19

Apparently, Boost is being downloaded over 6000 times/day from Bintray, and we've reached the limits of their bandwidth for the month. We're trying to get them to increase our quota (and see if there's someone who is downloading boost over and over again), but at the present time, downloads from bintray are being rejected. Hopefully this will be a temporary situation. -- Marshall (boost release manager)

3 2

disjoint_sets and graph appear to be Link previously defined to another file,
by Paul A. Bristow 30 May '19

30 May '19

I have just done a full GIT update from Boost develop. (and bootstrap to rebuild b2.exe) When I try to recreate the headers or run any b2 run, I now get Performing configuration checks - default address-model : 32-bit - default architecture : x86 - symlinks supported : yes error: Cannot create link ..\..\..\boost\pending\detail\disjoint_sets.hpp to ..\..\graph\include\boost\pending\detail\disjoint_sets.hpp. error: Link previously defined to another file, ..\..\disjoint_sets\include\boost\pending\detail\disjoint_sets.hpp. I deleted all the bin.v2/libs files but this has no effect. I have deleted /disjoint_sets to get going again (as I not using either graph or disjoint_sets). What am I doing wrong? Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830

2 1

Follow the work on Google summer of code
by David Bellot 30 May '19

30 May '19

Hi Boost community, you can follow the work of our students on this github page https://github.com/BoostGSoC19 They are all working very hard already. Best regards, David

1 0

Re: [boost] Aggregate usage statistics request for Boost
by Dimitri John Ledkov 29 May '19

29 May '19

On Fri, 3 May 2019 at 10:03, Joshua Marshall <jrmarsha(a)mtu.edu> wrote: > > Hello all, > > A few of us with Boost are trying to decide support of different compilers. I know that Ubuntu collects some anonymized statistics which could help us some. Could someone please collect and forward the following bits of information to boost(a)lists.boost.org : > Install base size of Ubuntu 14.04 to 19.04 > Per OS version, what versions of GCC, Clang, and Boost are installed on what percentage of the install base. > -- > ubuntu-devel mailing list > ubuntu-devel(a)lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel >From Ubuntu development point of view, our biggest concern is that no stable releases of boost claim to be supported or tested with the next GCC compiler. For example, for 19.10 we will be switching to GCC-9 by default, yet boost 1.70.0 primary test compilers do not include GCC-9 for Linux. Ideally, we would like to see boost upstream include next-gcc as part of primary or additional test compilers for every boost release. W.R.T. Install base size ratios and which boosts are in use -> we do not have statistics on what you are asking for. I.e. default compilers are installed on all systems (to support dkms), some boost runtime libraries are also always installed as quite a few packages depend on boost runtimes. And dev packages are not tracked and impossible to tell if they are installed by accident or on purpose. We can say generically, that our LTS releases are used a lot more than non-LTS releases, and thus by extension default compilers and boost versions within those are used more. And LTS cycles do follow an overlap, where for a while after one LTS release, the previous LTS is the most popular, and then it rolls over eventually. Our default compiler is GCC for all packages. LLVM toolchain is used for mesa and intel graphics compiler, and like that's it. Mesa requirements are what drives LLVM toolchain updates in Ubuntu. Next LTS 20.04 -> to be determined Current Development 19.10 -> 1.67.0, gcc 8.3 being switched to gcc 9, clang 8.0 (or newer) Current LTS releases (most popular at the moment) 18.04 -> 1.65.1, gcc 7.4, clang 6.0 16.04 -> 1.58.0, gcc 5.3, clang 3.8 Past basic support, in Extended Maintainance Support LTS (very old, and declining in usage) 14.04 -> 1.54.0, gcc 4.8, clang 3.4 12.04 -> 1.48.0, gcc 4.6, clang 3.0 -- Regards, Dimitri.

3 3

Re: [boost] [Boost.Config] Detect compiler support for std::current_exception
by dariomt＠gmail.com 29 May '19

29 May '19

> > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm working on a Boost.Exception issue [1] and I need to detect compiler > > support of std::current_exception. In the issue there is a suggestion to > > use #if __cplusplus > 199711L but that does not work for my use case > > (VS2015 reports __cplusplus = 199711L). > > MSVC defines _MSVC_LANG for this[1]. At least, it used to. However, it > would be cleaner to have a dedicated macro in Boost.Config for this. > Totally agree. > > > Is it possible to add a config macro for this? > > Or is there a good enough existing macro I can use? > > I don't think there is. Something like BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_EXCEPTION > would be useful. > I would need to detect support for std::current_exception, not the presence of header <exception>, so I would think that BOOST_NO_CXX11_CURRENT_EXCEPTION is what I need, right? So that I can #ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_CURRENT_EXCEPTION // I can use std::current_exception() unconditionally here #endif Should I open an issue in github for Boost.Config?

3 2

[Boost.Config] Detect compiler support for std::current_exception
by dariomt＠gmail.com 27 May '19

27 May '19

Hi all, I'm working on a Boost.Exception issue [1] and I need to detect compiler support of std::current_exception. In the issue there is a suggestion to use #if __cplusplus > 199711L but that does not work for my use case (VS2015 reports __cplusplus = 199711L). Is it possible to add a config macro for this? Or is there a good enough existing macro I can use? Thanks in advance [1] https://github.com/boostorg/exception/issues/10

2 1

My messages do not reach boost-request@lists.boost.org
by dariomt＠gmail.com 27 May '19

27 May '19

Hi, I've tried a couple of times to write to the Boost Developers mail list, but I don't see my messages getting through to the list. I seem to reach the Boost Users mil list without problems. Could you please review why this is happening? Thanks in advance!

1 0

Re: [boost] bcp namespace aliasing broken, impacts package providers, shared libraries unusable since 1.69
by Peter Dimov 26 May '19

26 May '19

> Actually, bcp already has a list of things it can't figure out > automatically: > > https://github.com/boostorg/bcp/blob/develop/add_path.cpp#L195 > > which would need to be updated... ... with something like https://github.com/boostorg/bcp/commit/365e5e74f1708425ae542698730076e52acb… Unfortunately, after these fixes, everything seems to be copied correctly, but b2.exe then crashes. Something to do with `test` using `predef`, I assume, because if I delete libs/test, it then works.

1 0

Re: [boost] bcp namespace aliasing broken, impacts package providers, shared libraries unusable since 1.69
by Peter Dimov 26 May '19

26 May '19

> It could probably be changed to copy libs/$LIB/config as a special case. Actually, bcp already has a list of things it can't figure out automatically: https://github.com/boostorg/bcp/blob/develop/add_path.cpp#L195 which would need to be updated with, I assume, std::pair<fs::path, fs::path>("libs/log/build", "libs/log/config"), and std::pair<fs::path, fs::path>("libs/test/build", "libs/predef/check"), or something like that.

1 0

Re: [boost] bcp namespace aliasing broken, impacts package providers, shared libraries unusable since 1.69
by Peter Dimov 26 May '19

26 May '19

> But as a first step I think that we need to add a Travis test to tools/bcp > that exercises the scenario we want to fix. I've looked into this and we have some issues we probably need to address even before getting to namespace aliasing. 1. Since tools/boost_install and libs/headers are now needed by Jamroot, it might be better if we install them by default when `build` is requested. (libs/config is also needed by Jamroot, but almost every other library needs it as a dependency, so this usually doesn't manifest as a problem in practice.) 2. When I add them by hand, bcp installs more than needed, because tools/boost_install/test references a number of libraries such as container, log, python, and so on; we don't need these for typical uses. 3. Installing these libraries exposed issues with them: 3a. Log doesn't work because it has jamfiles in libs/log/config, which is not copied (just `build` and `src` are.) 3b. Test doesn't work because it uses predef.check in its Jamfile, but Predef is not copied. Apart from that, https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/bcp/builds/537447552

2 5