January 2011 - Boost - lists.stage.boost.cppalliance.org

bad include guards
by Steven Watanabe 26 Jan '17

26 Jan '17

AMDG The following pairs of files have identical include guards ./boost/concept_check/general.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept_check/msvc.hpp ./boost/concept/detail/msvc.hpp ./boost/filesystem/cerrno.hpp ./boost/cerrno.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/tree.hpp ./boost/interprocess/containers/detail/tree.hpp ./boost/mpl/min_max.hpp ./boost/mpl/max.hpp ./boost/mpl/vector/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/mpl/list/aux_/front.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity_fwd.hpp ./boost/multi_index/identity.hpp ./boost/python/pointee.hpp ./boost/python/detail/pointee.hpp ./boost/spirit/phoenix/closures.hpp ./boost/lambda/closures.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/v1_/proto_typeof.hpp ./boost/xpressive/proto/proto_typeof.hpp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_dep_nested_class.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_mem_templates.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_no_std_allocator.ipp ./libs/config/test/boost_has_vc6_mem_templ.ipp ./libs/conversion/test.hpp ./libs/any/test.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/expand_bwd_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/allocation_test_template.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/interprocess/test/print_container.hpp ./libs/interprocess/example/printcontainer.hpp ./libs/iostreams/test/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./boost/detail/utf8_codecvt_facet.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_regex_search.hpp ./libs/regex/test/regress/test_partial_match.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/C.hpp ./libs/serialization/test/A.hpp ./libs/xpressive/perf/regex_comparison.hpp ./libs/regex/performance/regex_comparison.hpp ./tools/inspect/time_string.hpp ./tools/common/time_string.hpp In Christ, Steven Watanabe

5 8

Why no non-null smart pointers?
by Ross MacGregor 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

I just created a very small smart pointer libary for our project. It will contain two types of shared pointers: SharedHandle and NullableSharedHandle. SharedHandle will be a shared pointer that cannot be null by ensuring a non-null construction while NullableSharedHandle will basically be a typedef for boost::shared_ptr. I firmly believe that code can be made more reliable by minimizing the use of nullable pointers. To this end, I think it is important that we start using non-null pointer types. Ideally the compiler would be able to understand a non-null pointer and catch bugs at compile time, but I think we can still improve things with a few runtime checks. If we make sure that a shared pointer is constructed with a non-null pointer and ban any reset() type methods, we guarentee that it points to something. This can be beneficial for the following reasons: 1. Any function that uses this type will no longer be burdened with precondition checks to make sure variables of this type are not null. 2. It's type is simply more explicit and better explains its function. 3. Moving the non-null check to the creation phase will reduce the possibility of encountering null pointer exceptions at runtime (assuming there are many more pointer references than constructor calls). So my little pointer library seems to make a lot of sense, but if so why hasn't this simple smart pointer variation made it into boost yet? Has this been discussed somewhere already? My search on non-null smart pointers is not revealing much discussion on the topic. Regards, Ross

9 16

[mpl] integral_c [type_traits] integral_constant limits
by vicente.botet 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

Hi, I was testing Boost.Ratio with gcc-4.6 c++0x and I get some compile errors when instantiating std::cout << boost::mpl::integral_c< boost::intmax_t, boost::integer_traits<boost::intmax_t>::const_max >::value ; ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:24:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a valid template argument for type 'long long int' because it is a non-constant expression ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: error: '-0x8000000000000000ll' is not a constant expression integral_wrapper.hpp:72 contains typedef AUX_WRAPPER_INST( BOOST_MPL_AUX_STATIC_CAST(AUX_WRAPPER_VALUE_TYPE, (value + 1)) ) next; The same line pass with gcc-4.6, gcc-4.5 and gcc-4.5 c++0x with just a warning. ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp: In instantiation of 'mpl_::integral_c<long long int, 0x7fffffffffffffffll>': ratio_io\ratio_io.pass.cpp:23:6: instantiated from here ..\..\..\../boost/mpl/aux_/integral_wrapper.hpp:72:96: warning: integer overflow in expression [-Woverflow] integral_c is by integral_constant, but integral_constant doesn't needs next a prior types. This means that with the current implementation we can not use integral_constant with the max value of the type. Do you think this is a bug in integral_constant? Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/

5 7

De Bruijn Bind (alternate bind syntax) Interest?
by David Sankel 24 Jun '13

24 Jun '13

Hello all, I've been working on an alternate bind syntax based on De Bruijn indices[1]. The syntax is very simple, yet the terms are very powerful. Here is an example of a function const that takes in an argument c and returns another function that, for all input, returns c: //λx.λy.x = λλ1 with De Bruijn indices. auto const_ = abs<1>( abs<1>( var<1,0>() ) ); More examples, further explanation, and an implementation are available here[2]. I'm thinking that this library could also be useful as a core for more syntax heavy bind variations. David [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index [2] http://bitbucket.org/camior/de-bruijn-bind/ -- David Sankel Sankel Software www.sankelsoftware.com 585 617 4748 (Office)

11 73

[config] consexpr workaround
by vicente.botet 21 Mar '13

21 Mar '13

Hi, in order to make easier the introduction of constexpr in a portable way I would like we add a Boost Config workarround. We can define some macros depending on whether BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR is defined or not. #if defined(BOOST_NO_CONSTEXPR) #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST const #else #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR constexpr #define BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST constexpr #endif For most of the constexpr functions or constructors BOOST_CONSTEXPR will work. constexpr tuple(); =versus= BOOST_CONSTEXPR tuple(); When used for static constants BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST is needed as we need to preserv the const keyword when consexpr is not available. static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= static BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST UIntType xor_mask = a; We could also add a STATIC_CONSTEXPR macro #define BOOST_STATIC_CONSTEXPR static BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= BOOST_STATIC_CONSTEXPR UIntType xor_mask = a; For this case the existing macro BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT could be modified to use BOOST_CONSTEXPR_OR_CONST when static const was used. static constexpr UIntType xor_mask = a; =versus= BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT(UIntType, xor_mask = a); Can we introduce this workaround? Best regards, Vicente _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/

6 17

[parameter] std proposal
by Lorenzo Caminiti 07 Jan '13

07 Jan '13

Hello all, Is there a C++ standard proposal for named parameter addition? I am looking for an "N-paper" for named parameters similar to N2081 for concepts, or N1962 for contracts. Thank you. -- Sent from my mobile device Lorenzo

6 8

[#pragma once]
by Sid Sacek 18 Nov '12

18 Nov '12

I've worked with the MSVC, Sun and GCC compilers. Each one of them supports #pragma once. Is there any reason to wrap this pragma within #ifdefs? Are there any compilers out there today that don't support this #pragma? #if defined( _MSC_VER ) && ( _MSC_VER >= 1020 ) # pragma once #endif Could we change this coding pattern so that it no longer looks like MSVC is being selfish? -Sid Sacek

17 20

[config] explicit call of operator templates / msvc bug workaround
by Stefan Strasser 10 Oct '12

10 Oct '12

Hi, is there already a macro in Boost.Config that allows you to insert the "template" keyword in the following code for those compilers that require it? struct functor{ template<class T> void operator()(); }; template<class F> void g(F f){ f.template operator()<int>(); //(1) works with GCC and comeau f.operator()<int>(); //(2) works with MSVC } this apparently only applies to operator calls. MSVC accepts both (1) and (2) for regular functions. (instantiating the operator template with an object of type T as argument, like mpl::for_each does, is not an option. I can't construct T.) thanks, Stefan

6 10

status of sp_counted_base_solaris.hpp
by Graham Bennett 07 Jun '12

07 Jun '12

Hi all, I'm interested in getting boost::shared_ptr to use atomic ops on Solaris. I notice there is an implementation using the OS-provided atomics in boost/detail/sp_counted_base_solaris.hpp, but it doesn't seem to be included. According to this thread: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/07/107144.php, it seems the reason might be that it wasn't possible to come up with a proper preprocessor condition to include it on the right versions of Solaris. I'm considering modifying my boost installation to include this header on Solaris - does anyone know of any issues with the code, or can they confirm that it has been well tested? Are there any other reasons for its omission? Thanks, Graham -- Graham Bennett

4 7

[interprocess] message_queue hangs when another process dies
by Sergei Politov 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Hi, I have found the following problem with message_queue on win32 (MSVC 2008 + Windows Vista). Suppose we have 2 processes, one sends messages to queue, another reads them. When reading process dies (for instance using End process) during message_queue.receive the another process hangs in send. As I found during investigation, it tries to lock interprocess mutex, but it is already locked by dead process. So this message queue instance becomes unusable. I attached the example. Steps to reproduce: 1) Start "mq.exe s" (i.e. with argument s) It outs: sender: $PID 2) Start mq.exe without arguments. It outs: receiver: $PID 0 1 2 3 4 This time sender outs: send done: 3) At this point the message queue is empty and receiver waits for messages. End it with Task Manager. 4) Enter some number in sender console and press Enter. 5) The sender hangs in message_queue.send Best Regards, Sergei

6 13