I've just teached Boost.Build V2 to run unit tests under valgrind --- an
utility for detecting various memory-related errors. I get this error on
some code which uses Boost.Test:
==14051== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==14051==at 0x4027211F: (within
Following the recent is_convertible discussion, I've put the following
together:
Rationale:
~~
There has been some fairly intense discussion on boost mailing list about
the is_convertible template, one suggestion was that since only expressions
(and not types) are convertible to a type or
I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
from the command line:
-DBOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG
Maybe, but you could end up with
The problems is caused by calling data() on std::string, which does not
zero-terminate the returned value, AFAICT. The following patch eliminates
the warning:
I reported that one some time ago: there are quite a few occurrences of
data() where c_str() should be used :-(
John Maddock
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:06:35 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
IIUC is_based_and_derivedT,T evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
strictly speaking a base class of itself?
Yes
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:03:54 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following the recent is_convertible discussion, I've put the following
together:
Rationale:
~~
There has been some fairly intense discussion on boost mailing list about
the is_convertible template, one suggestion was
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
IIUC is_based_and_derivedT,T evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
strictly speaking a base class of itself?
Yes
That's a convention of is_base_and_derived though. To the standard a
class is
is there, among the uses of is_convertible that you have listed, any
usage where no expression could be used (so that you would need to see
if the type is convertible)?
Yes - named template parameters form the main example of that, concept
checking another (although in that case you could
Daniel Yerushalmi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b15dfk$h89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In visual C 7
The result are:
Thanks...
but I was unforgivable lazy and post an Ill-formed program (should have
tested first!)
Could you tyr again with this corrected
I wonder if anyone has code for implementing unformatted I/O? What I
have in mind is for the simple case where the application that reads
data knows the data types, so this is not as complicated as the
general marshalling situation.
___
Unsubscribe
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
templateclass T
struct X
{
X ( X const ) ;
templateclass U X ( XU const ) ;
} ;
As a general MSVC rule, put the template before the non-template.
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
The smart pointer proposal is unconvincing to me. This, of course, comes
at
no surprise. There's some conjecture in the reference document at
http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm such as The support
for
custom deallocators does
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrei suggested that I pose this question to several groups, as
it is relevant to all of them. While the problem was originally
identified
by Richard Crossley, Andrei sums it up pretty well right here:
The problem is, auto_ptr's behavior relies on
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom deleter has many
implementation efficiency consequences that are not mentioned in the
Standards proposal nor in the shared_ptr doc. My feeling is that the
documentation at
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:007701c2c6d2$0ef89880$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
templateclass T
struct X
{
X ( X const ) ;
templateclass U X ( XU const ) ;
} ;
As a general
I would like to request a formal review of my program options library,
which allows to work with options provided by user on the command line,
in config file and (possibly) in other sources.
The library was tested with gcc 2.95 and gcc 3.2. It also works with bcc
5.5.1, except for one example.
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing I like most about RL is that it never fails (is strongly
exception safe).
Those are different. Do mean to say that it never throws (offers the
nothrow guarantee)?
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:58:33 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there, among the uses of is_convertible that you have listed, any
usage where no expression could be used (so that you would need to see
if the type is convertible)?
Yes - named template parameters form the main
I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
from the command line:
-DBOOST_ENABLE_LONG_LONG
Maybe, but you could end
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's also a contradiction in there. The document nicely continues One of
the reasons shared_ptr has been so successful is that in the great majority
of cases it supplies all the features that users need. However, only two
paragraphs below, in
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
IIUC is_based_and_derivedT,T evaluates to true as well. Is a class T
strictly speaking a base class of itself?
Yes
That's a convention of
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:58:22 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've noticed that the philosophy of boost as it concerns long long is:
if the type exists then use it. Since it is a non standard feature
shouldn't it be used only if requested by the user (e.g. with a macro
from the
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr... to
support move semantics (in current C++)?
Why wouldn't you want that? At the very
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
010a01c2c6c9$fa168060$fa2b87d9@1016031671">news:010a01c2c6c9$fa168060$fa2b87d9@1016031671...
[...]
Seems to be working OK for me - in fact that header shouldn't be
included with that compiler - it's used only when
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The thing I like most about RL is that it never fails (is strongly
exception safe).
Those are different. Do mean to say that it never throws (offers
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr... to
support move semantics (in current C++)?
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom deleter has many
implementation efficiency
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's also a contradiction in there. The document nicely continues
One of
the reasons shared_ptr has been so successful is that in the great
majority
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
I'd like to suggest changing the
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 03:06:35 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
IIUC
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
You can use this argument for any feature. But you can't include all
features.
Watch me try. Did you want that sink in any particular color? ;)
At the
The tentative release schedule for 1.30.0 looks like:
January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
February 14 - Branch for release.
By end of February - Final release.
Unless this is a problem for someone, we will go with this schedule.
--Beman
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create the
One True Smart Pointer Design, then yes, auto_ptr emulation is
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
template
typename T1,
template class class OP1,
class CP1,
template class class KP1,
template class class SP1
SmartPtr(SmartPtrT1, OP1, CP1, KP1, SP1 const rhs,
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
I'd like to suggest changing the
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create the
One True
At 09:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:00b201c2c6da$16c22e70$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
It should be noted that the constructor taking a custom
At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
At the cost of adding an extra name, maybe it would be nice to provide
is_base_and_derived and is_super_and_subclass.
I'm using is_base_and_derived_strict in my own traits. I like that
base and derived reflect the parameters order, but I always mix up
super and sub
Hi,
You right. It somehow slipped my attention before. Luckily, I was working
with library last weekend and already eliminated almost all used of C
strings. And it will automatically fix this issue.
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
Could be shift this date for 2 days, So we coould use an extra weekend?
Gennadiy.
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
At 11:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
the current shared_ptr enemies, when in my opinion they perfectly
complement each other. But I've grown tired of asking.
I guess I started feeling that way when I've been told that shared_ptr is
everything everyone will ever need, so there's no
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001901c2c6ea$e2576360$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
You can use this argument for any feature. But you can't include all
features.
Watch me try. Did you want that
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
this makes it less attractive for creating subpointers.
Ouch! Is this due to
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
[...]
I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make
move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort
unnecessary.
Only
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001b01c2c6f4$71f7a490$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the cost of adding an extra name, maybe it would be nice to provide
is_base_and_derived and
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Nope, but I want my sink strongly exception safe; the pointer should
be deleted when a policy constructor throws.
The documentation on the site indicates I can use GXX or
GCC_ROOT_DIRECTORY to specify which g++ binary to run. However, these
settings are ignored, and the g++ in my path is used instead.
GCC_ROOT_DIRECTORY=/usr/local/gcc-cvs/ TOOLS=gcc ~/bin/bjam
and other variants show this behaviour.
The generated script contains the lines :
# add the -AA conformance option to CXXFLAGS for HP aCC only
if test $CXX = 'aCC'
CXXFLAGS=-AA $CXXFLAGS
fi
This fails under sh configure. Changing to :
if test $CXX = 'aCC'; then
CXXFLAGS=-AA $CXXFLAGS
fi
fixes it
regards
john
--
What *is*
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I don't know about others, but when I read that three other pointers have
been removed from the proposal to make it palatable and that there's word
about a fourth, I start to doubt that shared_ptr
At 11:42 AM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
...
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
Disavowing your child? ;)
With extreme prejudice.
Not everyone agrees with you. After all,
we still have scoped_ptr and a move proposal.
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Nope, but I want my sink strongly exception safe; the pointer should
be
Lock mechanism was added to shifted_ptr:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/shifted_ptr.zip
Benchmarks are also updated. Still shifted_ptr is using less memory and
twice faster for reconstruction time.
Notes:
- The first memory map report is not precise (shifted_ptrU).
- The reports were
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
this makes it less attractive for
Hi,
Is there neat way with MPL to implement conditional expessions without
introducing aditional structures. For example:
templatetypename Container
void
foo( Container c )
{
// pseudo code
[if ( c is reservable , i.e. has method reserve )
c.reserve( 100 );
]
...
}
At 01:02 PM 1/28/2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
January 31 - Finish commits of major new components.
Could be shift this date for 2 days, So we coould use an extra weekend?
Yes, if you need it. Will anything you commit break compatibility with
existing code?
The point of Finish commits of
At 01:35 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:000d01c2c6f3$85038c30$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
[...]
By the way, the current typedef template proposal prohibits deduction;
this makes it less attractive for
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b16m42$7pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16m42$7pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Lock mechanism was added to shifted_ptr:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/shifted_ptr.zip
Benchmarks are also updated. Still shifted_ptr is using less memory
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
Yes, I found that on my own, and noticed that of the two mutually
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
For a shared-ownership smart pointer with weak_ptr support, I expect
some people will say that mandates a refcounted rather than reflinked
implementation. I don't think that is true, but it may
Now, we have one question of copylight.
I see that the original copyright must be left in the tranlated document.
Then, we will add the translater's copyright on the translated document
to the tail of each document.
The format will be, for example,
---
Japanese Translation Copyright 2003
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:33:38 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't we stick the -b- option in our borland toolset, since it
increases conformance?
Personally I would prefer that, yes (not for BOOST_STATIC_CONSTANT
though, as I said
At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
Disavowing your child? ;)
Historical note: auto_ptr was one of the few (maybe only) times when the
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 01:42 PM, David B. Held wrote:
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
Disavowing your child? ;) Not everyone agrees with you. After all,
we still have scoped_ptr and a move proposal. auto_ptr was just
too far ahead of its time. ;)
At 03:19 PM 1/28/2003, you wrote:
Yes, if you need it. Will anything you commit break
compatibility with existing code?
No. It's just fix for Boost.Test unit-test to make it compartible with
regression testing and one new feature. I asked to make sure.
No problem. Thanks for checking.
At 03:24 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
Yes, I found that on my own,
The uniform_smallint class template has a ctor that takes a min and max
value. The documentation does not disallow min == max, and indeed there
are cases where it is convenient to allow this in order to avoid having
to write special cases in user code. Nevertheless, the implementation
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
At 08:25 PM 1/28/2003, Edward Diener wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Also, auto_ptr
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
BTW, this is also not the strong guarantee (I dunno, maybe people
mean something else by strongly exception safe -- is there a
definition somewhere?)
Does it even make sense to say that a
From: Rani Sharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, a class is it's own superclass/subclass, but IMO not it's own
base: so it is a bug in the implementation.
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
BTW, this is also not the strong guarantee (I dunno, maybe people
mean something else by strongly exception safe -- is there a
definition somewhere?)
Hi Jeremy,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Vladimir Prus wrote:
ghost
ghost I've come across more problems with documentation.
ghost
ghost 1. The docs for topological_sort say that if (u,v) edge is present,
ghost then u comes before v in the topological order. I was assuming
ghost that if I store
Jeremy Siek wrote:
Hi Volodya,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Vladimir Prus wrote:
ghost
ghost I think that BGL concept docs are a little bit out of sync with
ghost the concept cheking code. I've corrected some of problems and
ghost attach a patch. Is it OK to apply it?
Yes, those corrections look fine.
75 matches
Mail list logo
