Re: [boost] [release] 1.64.0 post-beta merges

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Oliver Kowalke via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

2017-04-08 22:35 GMT+02:00 Daniel James via Boost :

...

On 8 April 2017 at 21:10, Oliver Kowalke via Boost wrote:

...

I could re-write the commit and remove the modified line in execution_context.hpp The commit will then contain documetation that explains how to enable/disable the APIs with the special boost.build property + modified Jamfiles from the

examples.

...

Could I get then the OK to merge?

I honestly don't know. It looks like '<context-switch>ec' is supported in released code, and this might break builds which use that, but then again, it might not, or it might not matter. It really needs someone who understands boost build features to look at it, and that isn't me.

'<context-switch>ec' was wrong, ec must be ec1 and ec2 <context-switch>ec1 == build with execution_context (v1) <context-switch>ec2 == build with execution_context<> (v2) <context-switch>cc == build with callcc() (default API)

the commit fixes a problem

Here's my take on the overall change < https://github.com/boostorg/context/commit/9e3f5fdcd9b213213ad7c319cbb96c37be9f80ca> (that's the right change?).. Jamfile.v2.. If the context-switch feature existed in a previous release it would be safer to change it to the values "cc ec ec1 ec2", and make ec and ec1 be equivalent by setting the same define. General.. You can't rely on people using Boost Build to build the library. Hence just documenting "build property ['context-switch=ec1]" etc is not sufficient for users. But ultimately this is your call as to what you expect users to do. execution_context.cpp: -# if (defined(BOOST_EXECUTION_CONTEXT) && (BOOST_EXECUTION_CONTEXT == 1)) +# if (BOOST_EXECUTION_CONTEXT == 1) I would consider that change dangerous. If users are not building with b2 there is a high probability they will not define BOOST_EXECUTION_CONTEXT. Unless you define it to some default some place I can't immediately see in that commit. So I'd say the change is risky. And I would prefer if you find a way to make it safer. -- -- Rene Rivera -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail