- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

boost 1.50.0 - function_input_iterator issue
by hans ewetz 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

In boost v1.50.0 the function_input_iterator constructor performs dereferencing which may prevent creation of an 'end' iterator. Should it not instead dereference in the dereference() function and possibly keep a dirty flag indicating if the current value is valid? Apologies if I have missed any similar posting related to this problem. Hans

2 1

[review] Multiprecision review results
by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

Summary -------- John Maddock and Christopher Kormanyos' Multiprecision library is ACCEPTED for inclusion into Boost, with 8 YES votes, 1 NO vote, and 1 CONDITIONAL vote. Details -------- Most reviewers noted that this was a sufficiently good first step toward extended precision arithmetic for inclusion into Boost. I think John and Chris will agree that there remains quite a bit of work left to do, but as one reviewer noted, John has an excellent track record regarding Boost development and Chris has been extremely dedicated during the pre-review development, review process, and post-review development, so I think this bodes well for the library's future. I'm going to highlight what I perceive to be some of the bigger issues raised by various individuals involved with in discussion, but I will share all my notes via Google Docs [1], and of course even further details are available in the mailing list archive. I note that many of the issues raised during the review have already been addressed by John and Chris. Mixed-Type Arithmetic -------- This has come up over and over again, especially in the context of allowing extended precision types within the same "family" to interoperate, which I think is tractable. Removing my review manager hat for a moment, perhaps a tag dispatching system similar to Boost.MPL or Boost.Fusion could be used, where all arithmetic types within the same family have the same tag, and hence only allow mixing types with the same tag. Most types will have a unique tag (which, I don't know, could default precisely to the arithmetic type?), but, e.g., Vicente's family of fixed-precision (and maybe even fixed-point) types would all be identifiable as being in the same family, and a traits class would determine the result types of the various arithmetic operations. Mixed-type arithmetic outside the above scope seems more tricky, but some users seem to still desire this in some form. Actual desired use cases will undoubtedly help here. Naming -------- Several commented on the redundancy of "mp_" prefix for identifiers already residing the boost::mp namespace. Narrowing Conversions -------- cpp_dec_float should round rather than truncate on narrowing conversions. Review manager hat off: I wonder if a radix-2 implementation of an arbitrary precision float should ultimately be prioritized and recommended over the present radix-10 implementation? It sounds like conversions in general should be reviewed, but I'm entirely sure myself where they all stand. If possible, narrowing conversions should be explicit while others (that would guarantee no loss of precision) may be implicit. This would be a departure from C++ builtin types. Performance -------- Phil, the lone NO vote, lamented that the scope of the library was evidently beyond simple fixed-precision (e.g., 128-bit or 256-bit) integral types, which is his desired use case. Indeed, at least in an earlier version of MP, expression templates seemed to give a performance penalty relative to using the raw back-end types; in theory, expression templates should give no performance hit, but compilers just may not be there yet. In any case, several reviewers requested that the scope of the library be clarified up front in the documentation. Regularization/Normalization of Back-End Behavior via Front-End -------- As Edward pointed out, different back-ends generally have different behavior on some "exceptional" cases, making use of the corresponding front-ends in generic contexts at times cumbersome (specifically when the generic context needs to handle said exceptional cases). A couple examples given were division-by-zero and conversion from a string with invalid characters. It is by no means *necessary* to regularize/normalize *all* such differences, but as many as possible and practical should be identified, considered, and documented. Separation of Data Structures and Algorithms -------- Though requested, John and Steven have maintained that this simply isn't very practical. I've gathered that there are too many special cases that (1) would make implementations a nightmare; and (2) would have be addressed very carefully (i.e., in a likely not-very-readable way) to avoid any performance hits. Since this has come up a few times, maybe something could be said in the documentation about this. Thanks to everyone who submitted reviews and participated in the discussion. Let me know if I left out anything you feel is particularly significant or inaccurate. - Jeff [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/19YgtWBQt0lpjJoJDOtAlScZAZyOwzbHimiYTi-g…

7 6

Code question on fusion tag_of.hpp
by Dave Steffen 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

Hi Folks During a recent bug hunt, we came across the following (Boost 1.49, fusion/adapted/std_tuple/tag_of.hpp): #include <tuple> namespace std { template <typename... Elements> class tuple; } We find this rather puzzling -- why is this here? As far as we can tell, this doesn't do anything. (Well, it did participate in a long, ugly compiler error about variadic templates, which is why we found it.) What are we missing? Thanks for any insight. -- Dave Steffen Software Engineer NUMERICA CORPORATION www.numerica.us (970) 461-2000 main (970) 612-2327 direct

2 1

Re: [boost] [review] Multiprecision and uBlas
by John Maddock 09 Aug '12

09 Aug '12

>> Also running the tests for UBLAS with mp_number put in place of >> floats/doubles would be interesting. > > I've added modified versions of uBlas tests 1-7 to the multiprecision lib, > most of the tests pass, but there are two outstanding issues: > > * Test1: I had to disable a couple of tests because they trigger debug > assertons inside the STL. I get the same errors when testing with type > double, so I conclude it's a uBlas issue, not sure why they aren't > triggered in the regular regression tests though... > * Test3: I can't get this to compile, and the error are so inscrutable I > don't know what the issue is, I'd need some help from a uBlas expert to > figure those out. Hold on that was a mistake, test1 does pass, tests 3 and 7 don't compile for reasons I don't understand. I'd need some help from a uBlas expert to figure those out. John.

2 1

[Algorithm] [Range] `is_sorted` is duplicate
by Michel Morin 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Both Boost.Algorithm and Boost.Range have `is_sorted` function. Would it be better to deprecate Boost.Range's `is_sorted`? Also, Both Boost.Algorithm and Boost.Range have `iota` function. (In this case, Boost.Algorithm's `iota` returns void, but Boost.Range's `iota` returns the range.) Regards, Michel

1 0

[context] doesn't build on 32-bit osx
by Luke Elliott 08 Aug '12

08 Aug '12

Hello Oliver There's actually already a ticket on this (https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/7110 not from me) but since it's unassigned I thought I'd post here with a few more details. bjam address-model=32 -d+2 Performing configuration checks - x86 : yes Jamfile</Users/macpro/dev/checkouts/boost-trunk/libs/context/build>.gas ../../../bin.v2/libs/context/build/darwin-4.2.1/debug/address-model-32/architecture-x86/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.o as -o "../../../bin.v2/libs/context/build/darwin-4.2.1/debug/address-model-32/architecture-x86/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.o" "../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S" ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:82:suffix or operands invalid for `push' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:83:suffix or operands invalid for `push' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:84:suffix or operands invalid for `push' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:86:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:87:Missing operand value assumed absolute 0. ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:87:junk `[.-1b]' after expression ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:90:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:91:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:92:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:101:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:112:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:113:Missing operand value assumed absolute 0. ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:113:junk `[.-3b]' after expression ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:116:suffix or operands invalid for `push' darwin.compile.c++ ../../../bin.v2/libs/context/build/darwin-4.2.1/debug/address-model-32/fcontext.o Applying the 64-bit change from Daniel Larimer on 13th May and adding -arch=i386 to the as flags gets things further: as -o "../../../bin.v2/libs/context/build/darwin-4.2.1/debug/address-model-32/architecture-x86/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.o" "../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S" -arch i386 ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:87:Missing operand value assumed absolute 0. ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:87:junk `[.-1b]' after expression ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:113:Missing operand value assumed absolute 0. ../../../libs/context/src/asm/fcontext_i386_sysv_macho_gas.S:113:junk `[.-3b]' after expression From a quick google, it sounds like _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE is an ELF only thing. I'm now way out of my depth and probably can't really help any further (though happy to try out any fixes). Probably not of much relevance but: sw_vers ProductName: Mac OS X ProductVersion: 10.7.4 BuildVersion: 11E53 as -version Apple Inc version cctools-822, GNU assembler version 1.38 I hope that is of some use! ucontext throws up a deprecated warning so it would be nice to switch to boost.context one day. I've not tried Mountain Lion yet so don't know if they've actually removed ucontext support or if it's still deprecated. Best regards Luke Elliott.

2 3

[1.51][Wave] Last minute commit
by Hartmut Kaiser 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

Hey, I would like to ask for permission to commit rev 79783 to the release branch (see attached patch). This fixes a bug introduced only recently and will fix the current regressions (see here: http://tinyurl.com/c44ql68, for instance). The patch is for Wave only and does not touch any of the other Boost libraries. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu

2 4

[review] Multiprecision review (June 8th - 17th, 2012)
by Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. 07 Aug '12

07 Aug '12

Okay, it's that time. Apologies for not sending a reminder, but there had been a lot of pre-review comments over the last week or so, so I think this has been on at least some people's radar. The original review announcement is given below. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. < jeffrey.hellrung(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The review of the proposed Boost.Multiprecision library authored by John > Maddock and Christopher Kormanyos has been scheduled for > > June 8th - June 17th, 2012 > > and will be managed by myself. > > From the Introduction: > > -------- > "The Multiprecision Library provides *User-defined* integer, rational and > floating-point C++ types which try to emulate as closely as practicable the > C++ built-in types, but provide for more range and precision. Depending > upon the number type, precision may be arbitrarily large (limited only by > available memory), fixed at compile time values, for example 50 decimal > digits, or a variable controlled at run-time by member functions. The types > are expression-template-enabled for better performance than naive > user-defined types." > -------- > > And from the original formal review request from John: > > -------- > Features: > > * Expression template enabled front end. > * Support for Integer, Rational and Floating Point types. > > Supported Integer backends: > > * GMP. > * Libtommath. > * cpp_int. > > cpp_int is an all C++ Boost licensed backend, supports both arbitrary > precision types (with Allocator support), and signed and unsigned fixed > precision types (with no memory allocation). > > There are also some integer specific functions - for Miller Rabin testing, > bit fiddling, random numbers. Plus interoperability with Boost.Rational > (though that loses the expression template frontend). > > Supported Rational Backends: > > * GMP > * libtommath > * cpp_int (as above) > > Supported Floating point backends: > > * GMP > * MPFR > * cpp_dec_float > > cpp_dec_float is an all C++ Boost licensed type, adapted from Christopher > Kormanyos' e_float code (published in TOMS last year). > > All the floating point types, have full std lib support (cos sin exp, pow > etc), as well as full interoperability with Boost.Math. > > There's nothing in principal to prevent extension to complex numbers and > interval arithmetic types (plus any other number types I've forgotten!), > but I've run out of energy for now ;-) > > Code is in the sandbox under /big_number/. > > Docs can be viewed online here: > http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/big_number/libs/multiprecision/doc/h… > -------- > Any review discussion should take place on the developers' list ( boost(a)lists.boost.org) and anyone may submit a formal review, either publicly to the entire list or privately to just myself. As usual, please consider the following questions in your formal review: What is your evaluation of the design? What is your evaluation of the implementation? What is your evaluation of the documentation? What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? And, most importantly, please explicitly answer the following question: Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Lastly, please consider that John and Christopher have compiled a TODO list [1] based on pre-review comments. Feel free to comment on the priority and necessity of such TODO items, and whether any might be show-stoppers or warrant conditional acceptance of the library. Thanks in advance; looking forward to the discussion! - Jeff (& John & Christopher) [1] http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/big_number/libs/multiprecision/doc/h…

16 67

[type_erasure] Review started (July 18-27, 2012)
by Lorenzo Caminiti 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

Hello all, *** The review of Steven Watanabe's proposed Boost.TypeErasure library begins on July 18, 2012 and ends on July 27, 2012. *** THE LIBRARY C++ provides runtime polymorphism through virtual functions. They are a very useful feature, but they do have some limitations. * They are intrusive. In generic programming, we can design an interface which allows third-party types to be adapted to it. * They require dynamic memory management. Of course, most of the problems can be avoided by using an appropriate smart pointer type. Even so, it still acts like a pointer rather than a value. * Virtual functions' ability to apply multiple independent concepts to a single object is limited. The Boost.TypeErasure library solves these problems allowing us to mirror static generic programming at runtime. Library source: http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/type_erasure/ Pre-built documentation: http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/ You can also download archives with pre-built documentation from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/steven-watanabe.u/files/ YOUR REVIEW Please submit a review to the mailing-list by replying to this email ("[boost] [type_erasure] Review ..." should be in the subject). Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted as a Boost library. Other questions you may want to consider: 1. What is your evaluation of the design? 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation? 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study? 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion -- I'm looking forward to it! The review manager. --Lorenzo

12 56

interest in generic cyclic visitor?
by Jan Herrmann 06 Aug '12

06 Aug '12

Hello, I have an implementation of generic cyclic visitor. It is available at https://github.com/janherrmann/visitor . With my implementation it is possible to create non-member, non-friend templates which behave like virtual functions. Additionally it can be used as a base for multimethod implementation. Moreover it can be used to build a extensible type information system. All test cases compile with msvc-10.0 and gcc-mingw-4.6.2. Is there need for such a library? Jan Herrmann

3 5

[multiprecision] Some Performance gains
by John Maddock 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

Following the review of the multiprecision lib, I've been experimenting with some of the issues raised, currently focusing on performance improvements. Anyhow, I now have some results for improved *front end* performance, I haven't tried to seriously optimize the cpp_int backend yet (which was one of the criticisms), but for more on that see below. So... by way of measuring front end performance - the "abstraction penalty" if you like I've used a special backend type "arithmetic_backend<A>" where A can be any builtin arithmetic type. For tests I've used Boost.Math's special function test data for floating point types, and Phil Endecott's Delaunay code for integer performance. Win32 VC10 first: Delaunay test: int64_t : 9.45241 mp_number<arithmetic_backend<int64_t>, false> : 9.66815 Bessel Functions Test: Time for Bessel Functions - double = 0.015859 seconds Time for Bessel Functions - arithmetic_backend<double> - no expression templates = 0.0225565 seconds Time for Bessel Functions - arithmetic_backend<double> = 0.0376449 seconds Non Central T: Time for Non-central T - double = 0.456739 seconds Time for Non-central T - arithmetic_backend<double> - no expression templates = 0.459957 seconds Time for Non-central T - arithmetic_backend<double> = 1.08256 seconds Ubutunu Linux x64, GCC-4.6.1: Delaunay Test: int64_t 2.3969 mp_number<arithmetic_backend<int64_t>, false> 2.38334 Bessel Functions Test: Time for Bessel Functions - double = 0.0224617 seconds Time for Bessel Functions - arithmetic_backend<double> - no expression templates = 0.020384 seconds Time for Bessel Functions - arithmetic_backend<double> = 0.0220476 seconds Non central T: Time for Non-central T - double = 0.622985 seconds Time for Non-central T - arithmetic_backend<double> - no expression templates = 0.554527 seconds Time for Non-central T - arithmetic_backend<double> = 0.800129 seconds So to all intents and purposes there's now no abstraction penalty at all, except when using expression templates (which should be reserved for heavyweight backends anyway). Notice how the mp_number code is sometimes slightly faster, and sometimes slightly slower than the native type - I've observed that completely trivial changes to the test/measuring code can change this around - I suspect, but can't prove that the abstraction layer changes the decisions made by the compiler's optimizer resulting in somewhat capricious differences between results. With regard to the cpp_int backend, I still have work to do, however things do actually look pretty good on Linux x64 for the Delaunay test: Running calculations for: int64_t, int128_t (this is Phil's 128-bit special-case code) Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 3.28337 Running calculations for: int64_t, mp_int128_t Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 3.05434 Running calculations for: int64_t, mp_int128_t (ET) Number of flips = 23892000 Time per calculation = 3.02904e-08 Running calculations for: int64_t, cpp_int Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 5.41737 On Win32, I'm still a touch behind Phil's code, however, I haven't written a dedicated NxN->2N multiplication routine (yet): Running calculations for: int64_t, int128_t Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 14.2189 Running calculations for: int64_t, mp_int128_t Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 24.5114 Running calculations for: int64_t, mp_int128_t (ET) Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 19.741 Running calculations for: int64_t, cpp_int Number of flips = 23892000 Total execution time = 33.5 All the new code is in the sandbox, but I haven't documented any of the changes yet... Regards, John.

3 4

[typeof][implementation]why not use decltype or conditional expr?
by Larry Evans 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

Why couldn't the BOOST_TYPEOF macro be defined to simply use the new keyword, decltype, if it's available? I assume the macro, BOOST_HAS_DECLTYPE, indicates whether it is available. And if decltype not available, why couldn't it use the conditional expression method described here: http://www.artima.com/cppsource/foreach2.html I would think that would be simpler and more portable. -regards Larry

5 6

Formal review request: TypeIndex library
by Antony Polukhin 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

Hi, I'd like to ask to add Boost.TypeIndex to review queue. Introduction TypeIndex is an extended C++11 type_index library, that * works with disabled RTTI * can store const-volatile-reference info about types (if user requested it) * has all the functionality of std::type_index * has portable across compilers and platforms functionality for getting demangled type names * works across modules/shared libraries * does not require C++11 to work Docs: http://apolukhin.github.com/type_index/index.html Git: https://github.com/apolukhin/type_index Sources (zipped): https://github.com/apolukhin/type_index/zipball/master Git contains `patched` folder with TypeIndex'ed (and untested) versions of some existing boost libraries (Boost.Any, Boost.Graph, Boost.Math, Boost.MSM, Boost.PropertyMap, Boost.PropertyTree). Those libraries now do not require RTTI to compile. More libraries could be added to this list. Previous threads (checking interest): * Is there interest in typeid(TYPE).name() like function that does not require RTTI http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/05/193491.php * [boost] Is there interest in copyable type_info that does not require RTTI (was: Is there interest in typeid(TYPE).name() like function that does not require RTTI) http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/05/193519.php * [boost] [type_index] C++03 implementation in boost? http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2012/07/194627.php P.S.: Additional thanks to Agustín K-ballo Bergé for pointing out and fixing some bugs. P.P.S.: It would be great to schedule review to the end of September. -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin

2 3

[1.51.0] Beta1 release available; release branch open for bug fixes and doc fixes
by Marshall Clow 05 Aug '12

05 Aug '12

The beta releases are available at: http://boost.cowic.de/rc/ They are identical to the rc2 releases. The files (and associated md5s) are: e3a51b82894a67ac438eaa08192929eb *boost_1_51_0_beta1.tar.gz 1c541236f98dcaa706e7f8eabb11ebfc *boost_1_51_0_beta1.tar.bz2 964f150ce9d7bcaba74255aba73d338a *boost_1_51_0_beta1.zip e23467c3369a53189300c76e8c848aa1 *boost_1_51_0_beta1.7z The final release is scheduled for Monday, August 20th. The release candidate is scheduled to to be built Thursday, August 16th. That gives us less than two weeks to apply post-beta bug fixes and doc updates. Until August 13th permission is not required to merge bug fixes and documentation updates. Starting August 13th permission of a release manager is required for all merges. As always, New libraries and new features are not allowed during a post-beta period. Thanks, -- The Release Managers

2 1

[type_erasure] Review ended
by Lorenzo Caminiti 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

Hello all, The review of Boost.TypeErasure ended on Aug 3, 2012. Stay tuned for my decision on the library. Thank you very much to Steven, everyone that submitted a review, and everyone that participated in the discussions. The review manager, --Lorenzo On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > *** The review of Boost.TypeErasure ends today Aug 3, 2012. If you are > planning to submit a review, please do so by the end of today. *** > > Thank you to all that have participated to the review so far. > > The review manager, > --Lorenzo > > On Jul 27, 2012 1:41 PM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> After consulting the review wizards and Steven, I am extending >> Boost.TypeErasure review of one week, until August 3, 2012. >> >> Thank you to all that have submitted a review already and I am looking >> forward to receiving additional submissions. >> >> The review manager, >> --Lorenzo >> >> On Jul 27, 2012 3:22 AM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti >>> > <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> *** The review of Steven Watanabe's proposed Boost.TypeErasure library >>> >> begins on July 18, 2012 and ends on July 27, 2012. *** >>> > >>> > *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends in 5 days. Please submit your reviews >>> > :D *** >>> >>> *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends today July 27, 2012. If you are >>> planning to submit a review, please do so as soon as possible. *** >>> >>> Thank you to everyone who has commented on the library and submitted a >>> review so far! >>> >>> The review manager, >>> --Lorenzo >>> P.S. I am considering extending the review until end of day Sunday >>> July 29, 2012... I will keep you posted. >>> >>> > There have been interesting discussions on the library on the ML but I >>> > have not received any official review yet :( Especially if you are a >>> > user of Boost Any, Function, and Any Iterator, you definitely want to >>> > take a look at Type Erasure as it generalizes solutions provided by >>> > those other libraries. >>> > >>> > Thank you. >>> > >>> > The review manager. >>> > --Lorenzo >>> > >>> >> THE LIBRARY >>> >> >>> >> C++ provides runtime polymorphism through virtual functions. They are >>> >> a very useful feature, but they do have some limitations. >>> >> * They are intrusive. In generic programming, we can design an >>> >> interface which allows third-party types to be adapted to it. >>> >> * They require dynamic memory management. Of course, most of the >>> >> problems can be avoided by using an appropriate smart pointer type. >>> >> Even so, it still acts like a pointer rather than a value. >>> >> * Virtual functions' ability to apply multiple independent concepts to >>> >> a single object is limited. >>> >> The Boost.TypeErasure library solves these problems allowing us to >>> >> mirror static generic programming at runtime. >>> >> >>> >> Library source: >>> >> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/type_erasure/ >>> >> >>> >> Pre-built documentation: >>> >> >>> >> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/ >>> >> >>> >> You can also download archives with pre-built documentation from: >>> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/steven-watanabe.u/files/ >>> >> >>> >> YOUR REVIEW >>> >> >>> >> Please submit a review to the mailing-list by replying to this email >>> >> ("[boost] [type_erasure] Review ..." should be in the subject). >>> >> >>> >> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted >>> >> as a Boost library. >>> >> >>> >> Other questions you may want to consider: >>> >> 1. What is your evaluation of the design? >>> >> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? >>> >> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation? >>> >> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? >>> >> 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have >>> >> any problems? >>> >> 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A >>> >> quick reading? In-depth study? >>> >> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion -- >>> >> I'm looking forward to it!

1 0

[build] guru needed: static vs dynamic lib conundrum for serialization/filesystem library
by Robert Ramey 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

The serialiation library uses the boost.filesystem component in it's tests. On tests which test dlls on windows I'm getting an error: test_dll_exported.cpp ..\..\..\boost\filesystem\config.hpp(69) : fatal error C1189: #error : Must not define both BOOST_FILESYSTEM_DYN_LINK and BOOST_FILESYSTEM_STATIC_LINK call "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003\Vc7\bin\vcvars32.bat" >nul cl /Zm800 -nologo @"..\..\..\bin.v2\libs\serialization\test\test_dll_exported.test\msvc-7.1\debug\link-static\threading-multi\test_dll_exported.obj.rsp" Which I've traced to the command line "test_dll_exported.cpp" -Fo"..\..\..\bin.v2\libs\serialization\test\test_dll_exported.test\msvc-7.1\debug\link-static\threading-multi\test_dll_exported.obj" -TP /Z7 /Od /Ob0 /W4 /GR /MDd /Zc:forScope /Zc:wchar_t /Wp64 /GB /Op /wd4675 /EHs -Gy -wd4996 -c -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_STATIC_LINK=1 -DBOOST_LIB_DIAGNOSTIC=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_DYN_LINK=1 -DBOOST_SYSTEM_STATIC_LINK=1 -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS -D_SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE -D_SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS "-I..\..\.." which is produced by BJAM. The test application creates a DLL which is part of the test. BUT the dll created, as well as the serialization library used have been created with static linking. I'm assuming that the file system library is also created this way. I "think" this should be OK even though some C++ runtime code will be repeated between the DLL and the mainline test components and that this might create a problem so it's probably not the best practice. Never the less, users do this and I want to test it. I believe that the problem resides in some thing in the BJAM files related to filesystem libraries or test but I've been unable to track it down further than the above. Any help would be appreciated. Robert Ramey

3 3

[rational] with optional over/underflow checking
by Dan Searles 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

Hello, Would there be any interest in a modified "rational" class template/header that optionally allows for an exception be generated if there is under/overflow during any of the operations? I have been developing such a template, where the new defaulted bool template parameter would generate the class exactly as before to preserve the original stable implementation, and to support unlimited-precision integer where over/underflow would not be possible. Setting the new template parameter to true, however would generate code that adds the over/underflow checking. I have also generated new test driver code (BTW test code referenced by the documentation does not appear to exist, or at least the link is broken). rational.hpp has been around and stable for quite some time, so there may be a desire to keep it unchanged, but its original function (and indeed its original source code) can be maintained through the template system. If such a class were to be included in boost, what would be the best submission method?

3 4

Boost.Atomic on Windows, patch
by Václav Zeman 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

Hi. I have noticed that boost/atomic/detail/generic-cas.hpp is directly including Windows.h header. I consider this problematic for WinSock using applications as Windows.h automatically pulls in Winsock.h, the WinSock 1 header. This is problematic because it requires users that want to use WinSock 2 to order their include of WinSock2.h before inclusion of Boost.Atomic. At this point in time anybody serious about sockets on Windows really do not want to use WinSock 1 but version 2 instead. So I suggest the attached patch. -- VZ

4 6

[iterator] Error in documentation
by Gabriel Redner 04 Aug '12

04 Aug '12

In the boost::iterator documentation [1], the synopsis for make_function_input_iterator is missing the second 'state' argument. Specifically, this: template <class Function, class State> typename function_input_iterator<Function, State> make_function_input_iterator(Function & f); should be replaced by: template <class Function, class State> typename function_input_iterator<Function, State> make_function_input_iterator(Function & f, State state); Thanks, -Gabe [1] http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_50_0/libs/iterator/doc/function_input_itera…

2 2

[type_erasure] Review ends today Aug 3, 2012
by Lorenzo Caminiti 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

Hello all, *** The review of Boost.TypeErasure ends today Aug 3, 2012. If you are planning to submit a review, please do so by the end of today. *** Thank you to all that have participated to the review so far. The review manager, --Lorenzo On Jul 27, 2012 1:41 PM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > After consulting the review wizards and Steven, I am extending > Boost.TypeErasure review of one week, until August 3, 2012. > > Thank you to all that have submitted a review already and I am looking > forward to receiving additional submissions. > > The review manager, > --Lorenzo > On Jul 27, 2012 3:22 AM, "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti < >> lorcaminiti(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> *** The review of Steven Watanabe's proposed Boost.TypeErasure library >> >> begins on July 18, 2012 and ends on July 27, 2012. *** >> > >> > *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends in 5 days. Please submit your reviews >> :D *** >> >> *** Boost.TypeErasure review ends today July 27, 2012. If you are >> planning to submit a review, please do so as soon as possible. *** >> >> Thank you to everyone who has commented on the library and submitted a >> review so far! >> >> The review manager, >> --Lorenzo >> P.S. I am considering extending the review until end of day Sunday >> July 29, 2012... I will keep you posted. >> >> > There have been interesting discussions on the library on the ML but I >> > have not received any official review yet :( Especially if you are a >> > user of Boost Any, Function, and Any Iterator, you definitely want to >> > take a look at Type Erasure as it generalizes solutions provided by >> > those other libraries. >> > >> > Thank you. >> > >> > The review manager. >> > --Lorenzo >> > >> >> THE LIBRARY >> >> >> >> C++ provides runtime polymorphism through virtual functions. They are >> >> a very useful feature, but they do have some limitations. >> >> * They are intrusive. In generic programming, we can design an >> >> interface which allows third-party types to be adapted to it. >> >> * They require dynamic memory management. Of course, most of the >> >> problems can be avoided by using an appropriate smart pointer type. >> >> Even so, it still acts like a pointer rather than a value. >> >> * Virtual functions' ability to apply multiple independent concepts to >> >> a single object is limited. >> >> The Boost.TypeErasure library solves these problems allowing us to >> >> mirror static generic programming at runtime. >> >> >> >> Library source: >> >> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/type_erasure/ >> >> >> >> Pre-built documentation: >> >> >> http://steven_watanabe.users.sourceforge.net/type_erasure/libs/type_erasure/ >> >> >> >> You can also download archives with pre-built documentation from: >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/steven-watanabe.u/files/ >> >> >> >> YOUR REVIEW >> >> >> >> Please submit a review to the mailing-list by replying to this email >> >> ("[boost] [type_erasure] Review ..." should be in the subject). >> >> >> >> Please state clearly whether you think this library should be accepted >> >> as a Boost library. >> >> >> >> Other questions you may want to consider: >> >> 1. What is your evaluation of the design? >> >> 2. What is your evaluation of the implementation? >> >> 3. What is your evaluation of the documentation? >> >> 4. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? >> >> 5. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have >> >> any problems? >> >> 6. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A >> >> quick reading? In-depth study? >> >> 7. Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance to all who participate in the review discussion -- >> >> I'm looking forward to it! >> >

1 0

1.51.0] Beta 1 release candidate 2 available
by Marshall Clow 03 Aug '12

03 Aug '12

Release candidate files for 1.51.0 beta 1 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. The files (and associated md5s) are: e3a51b82894a67ac438eaa08192929eb *boost_1_51_0_beta1_rc2.tar.gz 1c541236f98dcaa706e7f8eabb11ebfc *boost_1_51_0_beta1_rc2.tar.bz2 964f150ce9d7bcaba74255aba73d338a *boost_1_51_0_beta1_rc2.zip e23467c3369a53189300c76e8c848aa1 *boost_1_51_0_beta1_rc2.7z Thanks to everyone who tried out rc1, and especially Neal Becker, who helped me track down a permissions error in the build process --The release managers

3 4

[forward_declare] Interest Inquiry toward Faster Compile Times
by Daniel Larimer 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

I have been increasingly frustrated with how long it takes to compile c++ code. After spending some time in Java and C# I can feel the pain of compile times much sharper than I use to. After seeing that Java and C# were able to achieve some level of generics without requiring 'everything in the header' and knowing that C compiles an order of magnitude faster than c++ I set about to find a way to increase my compile times. One of the common recommendations is to 'forward declare' everything and to use the PIMPL (private implementation pattern). Unfortunately, PIMPL usually implies heap allocation and if you ever want to return-by-value you are stuck including the entire header for the types you use in your header. I started inspecting some of my code and running it through the pre-processor and noticed that almost every source file was in the 50K+ lines of code post-preprocessor and that some files were north of 250K lines of code. This was ridiculously inefficient, especially because I was already using PIMPL everywhere I could and most of these lines were stl + boost. After a little bit of work I was able to abstract vector, boost::exception, iostream, string, threading, and many of the other types that I had been including that resulted in 'code-bloat'. The resultant library was able to reduce my post-preprocessor output to just one or two thousand lines of code (assuming the .cpp itself was 500+ lines). My compile times dropped to sub-second per object file from 10+ seconds (some up to 40 seconds). There are some side effects from doing this, performance in some cases was slightly slower due to one level of indirection, but with with link-time optimization this performance loss was minimized. And any loss of performance was clearly acceptable trade for the gain in development efficiency. In situations were performance really is critical I can choose to include the raw header in individual cpp files, but in most cases that level of 'optimization' is overkill. One of the things I realized doing this work was that often the only reason you need to include a header is because the compiler needs to know the SIZE of the type that you wish to forward declare and nothing else. So our development is slowed entirely due to the lack of a SINGLE NUMBER. So I created a utility that allowed me to 'forward declare' the size of the variable. This allowed me to use return by value and member variables via forward declaration WITHOUT having to resort to heap allocation. It occurred to me that a library that allowed developers to choose a little drop in runtime performance for a dramatic improvement in compile times would be generally useful to the C++ community. I have included an example of the 'technique' and general purpose utility that would allow others to quickly and easily integrate forward declaration of 'value types'. A full up boost submission would probably include pre-wrapped versions of most of the STL and Boost types.

9 24

bjam bug? Strange permission
by Neal Becker 02 Aug '12

02 Aug '12

While tracking down strange directory permissions, I noticed this: find . -name .hg -prune -o -type d \( \! -perm 755 -and \! -perm 775 \) -ls 17315044 4 drwxrw-r-- 3 nbecker nbecker 4096 Aug 2 08:41 ./bin.v2 I assume that dir was created by bjam during the test build, for some reason with strange mode.

3 4

Announce: Boost 1.50 installer for 32-bit Windows now available
by John Wiegley 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

With apologies to the community for not finding the time to release Windows installers for 1.48 and 1.49, we now have an installer for 1.50 available for immediate download: http://www.boostpro.com/download The version installs 32-bit libraries and/or DLLs for the following compilers: Visual C++ 8.0 (Visual Studio 2005) Visual C++ 9.0 (Visual Studio 2008) Visual C++ 10.0 (Visual Studio 2010) We are dropping support for Visual C++ 7.1 as of this time, unless someone wishes to contract us to bring it back. Also, although I have prepared a 64-bit installer, I have not yet found a solution for integrating it with the existing installer. If anyone with NSIS scripting experience would be willing to assist me, we'd be happy to provide a free installer which installs both 32-bit and 64-bit Boost libraries for applicable Windows platforms. Enjoy! -- John Wiegley BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost

2 4

Re: [boost] [Boost-commit] svn:boost r79832 - trunk/tools/build/v2
by Vladimir Prus 01 Aug '12

01 Aug '12

On 01.08.2012 19:26, jurko.gospodnetic(a)docte.hr wrote: > Author: jurko > Date: 2012-08-01 11:26:26 EDT (Wed, 01 Aug 2012) > New Revision: 79832 > URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/79832 > > Log: > Boost Build cleanup - minor stylistic comment changes + better commented the project-config.jam configuration file usage. Jurko, are these reformatting changes really necessary? It sounds like it will just make it harder to update Python port when we get back to it when semester starts in September. Thanks,

1 1