- Boost - lists.preview.boost.org

[release] Master branch is now open for bug fixes
by Ion Gaztañaga 04 Dec '24

04 Dec '24

Hi, The master branch is now open for bug fixes, test and documentation changes, but please follow the policy described in: https://github.com/boostorg/wiki/wiki/Releases%3A-Beta-Merge-Policy The next deadline: On December 4th, master closes for all changes. As always, the calendar is at https://www.boost.org/development/ — The release managers

9 22

[release] Reminder: Master Branch closes for all changes TOMORROW December 4th
by Marshall Clow 03 Dec '24

03 Dec '24

For the 1.87.0 release. The calendar is here: https://www.boost.org/development/index.html — Marshall P.S. If you have change notes, don’t forget to add them to the website.

1 0

Boost 1.87-beta1 still has sha1 failure in boost.compute
by Benjamin Redelings 02 Dec '24

02 Dec '24

Hi, It looks like boost 1.87-beta1 still has the compile failures from version 1.86 in boost::compute::detail::sha1. I see that there are patches from Aug 21, 2024 to address this in the `develop` branch of `boost.compute`. Are these likely to make it into boost 1.87? -BenRI

3 3

[release] Boost 1.87.0 beta 1 released
by Marshall Clow 19 Nov '24

19 Nov '24

Boost release 1.86.0 beta 1 is now available at: https://archives.boost.io/beta/1.87.0.beta1/source/ The SHA256 checksums are: 2e7cdf358526e8937b36b93fc96c501b8d6a0c8436e95e65440de31c48ec3086 boost_1_87_0_b1.tar.bz2 98a86940c13509dfd0288a3075280f46a76c9a3faeb8a9bf49ca7f9e6a271995 boost_1_87_0_b1.tar.gz 2ca4c019d0c96fd160dec5292a7a6bfcf7b4e592cd238a2207e17084f8021d08 boost_1_87_0_b1.zip 5ea32facd963dbb79ceb5bda7ef7546017ea5da854158f8933bbad74d6bbe622 boost_1_87_0_b1.7z This is slightly different than the RC3. Someone committed a documentation fix to master after we had started the release process, and rather than re-do the whole thing (and re-tag everything), we decided to go with the release that we prepared. The person who did this has been informed of the problems that he caused, and I don’t think he’ll do it again. Release notes (still need updates): https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_87_x.html Please try the beta and report any problems you encounter. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the release. -- Boost Release Team

4 6

Re: [boost] [review] [sqlite]
by Дмитрий Архипов 19 Nov '24

19 Nov '24

пт, 15 нояб. 2024 г. в 15:58, Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com>: > Would you also suggest automatic conversions or just stick to sqlite::value ? To be honest, I'm not sure. Automatic conversions would also have to rely on deduction, which would again inhibit the use of templates and overloaded functions. > I think you're right. I didn't really like the context idea in your > previous code example, but I think this can be rectified: instead of a > context object, you can pass in a tuple that gets forwarded to the > constructor of the function. > ... > create_aggregate_function<collect_libs, 1>("my-prefix", 42); First, I realised that there's no need to put any additional shared data into SQLite-managed memory, as you can always just add a reference member to the callable and store that shared data on your side. Second, I assume the point of this approach is to avoid copying the callable object, and also support non-default constructible callables. My approach uses the original callable as a kind of prototype, from which it copies new objects for every operation. To be honest, I don't think there should be any difference in performance between my approach with copying and yours with constructing. Ergonomically, I think mine is better. Yours may be looking more straightforward to users. One idea came to my mind. It's sometimes hard to determine which parts of the SQLite C API are supported by your library, and what specific components do it. So, I think you need a dedicated list of all SQLite C functions with comments like "supported via sqlite::backup", "supported via sqlite::mutex", "not supported because an analogous function X is supported ", "not supported because deprecated by SQLite", etc.

2 1

[graph] Temporary maintenance delays until the new year
by Jeremy Murphy 18 Nov '24

18 Nov '24

Dear Boost.Graph users, I'm in the process of moving to another country and changing jobs at the moment, so apologies that there has been and will continue to be a period of slow responses to (some) pull requests, etc until I get settled into a new routine. Regards, Jeremy

1 0

Re: [boost] [review] [sqlite]
by Ruben Perez 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

(CC-ing the list) On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 12:11, Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 7:07 PM Ruben Perez <rubenperez038(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 3. What's the rationale behind BOOST_SQLITE_NO_VIRTUAL? Wouldn't > > > > setting it cause trouble, being a compiled library? > > > > > > It would. The idea is that you can use that for constrained (i.e. > > > embedded environments) to avoid the unnecessary vtable and to enforce > > > devirtualization if your compiler misses this. > > > > If I have read the code correctly, these functions seem to only be > > used in headers. Why do they need to be virtual? It looks like it > > could have been made a compile-time interface (i.e. a concept), > > completely avoiding the need for the macro. What's the rationale > > behind this? > > That's correct, that's also what it was originally. But the error > messages were horrendous. > By creating a base class you get good error messages (purely virtual > because method X is missing) and the compiler is still compelled to > devirtualize by the way it's used. > And because it's effectively unused, you can disable it. Couldn't you achieve a similar effect (scoped to C++20 and later) by conditionally using concepts? In a way similar to what Asio does to diagnose completion tokens (i.e. BOOST_ASIO_COMPLETION_TOKEN_FOR).

2 1

Re: [boost] [review] [sqlite]
by Ruben Perez 16 Nov '24

16 Nov '24

(CC-ing the list) On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 at 11:55, Klemens Morgenstern <klemensdavidmorgenstern(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM Ruben Perez <rubenperez038(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What's the current recommended way to consume the library? Installing > > it with CMake seems to only install the binaries (and not the > > headers/cmake find_package scripts), and I haven't found a Jamfile to > > build the library as part of the Boost superproject. > > FetchContent + add_subdirectory is what I do. > > There also is a Jamfile in /build, but it's going to just to sqlite3, > because there's no `using sqlite ;` available at the moment. That's > probably only going to work on linux as of now. > Thanks, I completely missed out the Jamfile because of an unfortunate IDE setting.

1 0

[release] Boost 1.87.0 Release Candidate 3 is available
by Marshall Clow 15 Nov '24

15 Nov '24

The third release candidates for the 1.87.0 release are now available at: <https://boostorg.jfrog.io/artifactory/main/release/1.87.0/source/> The SHA256 checksums are as follows: 10ea784394be84794ed8981643ea0f05fae38de6aa595353115f85c79e4c1cd7 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.tar.gz 56db0fc204e6e0e40e1764800ef82475c96916e86112bc9627d1b94102cb786a boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.7z 45fcc8f7f63e023cdafc1d88b3b915f3feac6bc7aab52a91d5766b5a2248af6d boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.zip e0c971e3b92aa8ab781fe8239e050078600a446bd26c4509001037872974c4c2 boost_1_87_0_b1_rc3.tar.bz2 Changes since RC2: * The Boost.Parser library is included * A bug that caused compile failures in stl_interfaces with recent versions of clang has been fixed. * A bug that caused compile failures on Boost.Proces with gcc has been fixed. 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. -- The Release managers

5 11

Status of the 1.87.0 Beta Release
by Marshall Clow 12 Nov '24

12 Nov '24

There have been a couple of minor problems reported against RC2. However, yesterday we noticed that Boost.Parser was not part of the RC. We will be issuing an RC3 later today to rectify this. Unfortunately, this means that the beta release will be delayed by a couple of days — The Release Managers

1 0