Rani Sharoni wrote:
Compiler: GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
I also tried the GCC 3.2.1, but without success. It compiles, but it
gives the wrong results.
Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
AFAICS the Intel 7 works fine.
I was able to complie the attached code (with
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Which is why the first I in RAII stands for is. Each acquired
resource should initialize exactly one (sub)object.
Or acquiring a resource in any other context when members can
throw will
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:57:19 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In one of his usual shows of responsiveness, Lars has fixed a bug in
Gmane that would prevent the thread view link at the bottom of a
message from working because our message archive is too big.
See
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:21:07 +0100, Gennaro Prota
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derivedvoid, X
should be false? What about is_base_and_derivedvoid, void?
Well, clearly void is no base. Even
From: Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given that supertype/subtype has such a general meaning, how should an
is_super_and_subtype be defined? I guess the proposal mean to define it in
terms of inheritance, only, and in that case, it would work like
is_base_and_derived, with the addition that
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:36:37 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars is looking for a volunteer to rewrite the software if you're
interested...
If it is in PHP then I don't think I'm the right person :-)
Genny.
___
Unsubscribe other
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for the multiple posts.
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
While we're at it, is the final verdict that is_base_and_derivedvoid,
X
should be false? What about is_base_and_derivedvoid, void?
Well, clearly void is no base.
I see that you haven't replied to this for long time now. So either
you are bored from the question, or it wasn't clear enough. To see if
it is the second case I thought to reformulate it:
Well only for a day and a bit, sorry just busy :-(
Can you show, with an example, why the code used for
To me this is a bad idea, from a usability point of view. I strongly
object against making this change. The argument ordering is perfectly
obvious in is_base_and_derived, there is no such hint in is_base.
Personally I agree, I will bring this up again with the LWG folks,
John Maddock
Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
AFAICS the Intel 7 works fine.
Thanks.
John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/index.htm
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
The following version works on g++ for the same cases that the current
is_base_and_derived works (i.e. excluding multiple bases, and
private/protected inheritance), and gives an error in the cases it doesn't
work, while it works completely on the compilers that supports this (such
as
Comeau
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it *doesn't work* !
The problem is that your static assertion don't test anything, changing to:
//typedef char TestA[is_base_and_derivedB, D::result]; // Multiple bases
(error on g++)
typedef char
Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Compiler: GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
I also tried the GCC 3.2.1, but without success. It compiles, but it
gives the wrong results.
Any ideas, or results from other compilers?
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
list shifted_ptrT took 7.1966276647 seconds to reconstruct 2000
times.
[...]
list shared_ptrT took 14.0157271000 seconds
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| [...]
| templatetypename T
| Vec = std::vectorT, MyAllocT ;
|
| This looks cool! Is someone going to write a proposal for this before
| April?
Yes, I'll do.
| Or does this type of change not get considered at that time?
Well, the notion
Hey there!
I've had some problems trying to make a function pointer to a specific
windows callback function. It's defined as LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(
HWND
hWnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam ), however, any sore
attempt I try to get the boost::bind working with it seems to fail
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:13:23 +0100, Terje Slettebø
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:47:52 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:33:04 +0100, Terje Slettebø
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even if we also define is_super_and_subtype,
void is hardly a supertype of everything.
Well, it could be. It's like an abstract
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
don't really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
allocator; this is basically just the same hack I threw
Somewhere in the E.U., le 30/01/2003
Bonjour
OK, I tried to use the following advice:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rozental, Gennadiy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
templatetypename T
class atanh_tester
{
public:
atanh_tester(char *)
{
}
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it *doesn't work* !
John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
hacked up a version that
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
When did you first start seeing this? Last night? I didn't change anything...
Doug
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
A licensing question for everyone:
Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
Boost, a library that was previously
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the big
table, most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
portability, will want to know about individual compiler results. I
wonder if we shouldn't be assembling
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
don't really know what's going on under the covers in the SGI
allocator; this
Rani Sharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1bd2p$i97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:38:36 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually the reason for my question is a little strange :-) I hope to
explain it in understandable English: Andrej said
void is hardly a supertype of everything
Rewording it, it is: void is not a supertype of everything.
This immediately made
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:36:37 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lars is looking for a volunteer to rewrite the software if you're
interested...
If it is in PHP then I don't think I'm the right person :-)
He did use the word rewrite. I
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
A licensing question for everyone:
Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hhg$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
list shifted_ptrT took 7.1966276647 seconds to reconstruct 2000
times.
[...]
From: John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is tested on Comeau 4.3, Intel C++ 6/7 and g++ 3.2.
Except it *doesn't work* !
The problem is that your static assertion don't test anything, changing
to:
//typedef char TestA[is_base_and_derivedB, D::result]; // Multiple bases
(error on g++)
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
A licensing question for everyone:
Is there any
From: Rani Sharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
post it before a
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
LEA.
In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 12:20 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
It seems to me that while lib developers may be interested in the big
table, most users, unless they care extraordinarily about
portability, will want to know about individual compiler
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
When did you first start seeing this? Last night?
Yes.
I didn't change
From: Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
one
point to keep in mind is that
shared_ptrX px(new X);
performs two allocations. We can optimize the count allocation until
we're
At 08:16 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would you indulge me and try the benchmark again with the enclosed
shared_count patch applied and #undef BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR? I
don't really know what's going on
From: DudeSan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey there!
I've had some problems trying to make a function pointer to a specific
windows callback function. It's defined as LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(
HWND
hWnd, UINT message, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam ), however, any sore
attempt I try to get the
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
it'll screw up all vc6 testing pretty badly.
When did you
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not all set up to run those tests and measure the times, which is
why I was hoping Philippe would check it out.
There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp that you can use.
OK.
quick_allocator doesn't compile on VC6
Jeremy Siek wrote:
ghost vector vertex alternative_s ;
ghost iterator_property_map vectorvertex::iterator,
ghost property_mapG, vertex_index_t alternative = ...
ghost
ghost The problem is that I have to pass alternative_s.begin() when
ghost constructig alternative, but I might want
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
[Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
C++ code.]
I can't see any relevance. Care to explain?
I stated that _very_ poorly. I meant
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
could be a very important difference.
It usually isn't. I'm tempted to assert that it shouldn't be.
When does that
At 09:12 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:23 AM 1/30/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
To be fair, a factor of two improvement cannot just be shrugged off. But
one
point to keep in mind is that
shared_ptrX px(new X);
performs two allocations. We can
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've taken the liberty to convert the patch into
detail/quick_allocator.hpp.
#define BOOST_SP_USE_QUICK_ALLOCATOR to make shared_ptr use it.
shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp has
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:34:44 +0200, Rani Sharoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
John, unfortunately I have to turn off my computer now. I had just
hacked up a version that seems to work with gcc, but I don't want to
post it before a better testing.
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
that
you can use.
Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
time
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called
shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
that
you can use.
Your test doesn't seem to
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
g++/mingw):
GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
Win32
SGI standard library
BOOST_HAS_THREADS: (not defined)
BOOST_SP_USE_STD_ALLOCATOR: (not defined)
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:13:19 +0100, Terje Slettebø
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Roughly speaking B is a base of D if and only if
the base-specifier-list of D contains a class name for B or for a
class of which B is a base. Of course you can see if that's the case
by knowing the definition
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a test in libs/smart_ptr/test called shared_ptr_alloc_test.cpp
that
you can use.
Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
time
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You might need to use a lower n. Here's what I get (randomly choosing
g++/mingw):
GNU C++ version 2.95.3-6 (mingw special)
Win32
Wow, that's a much bigger improvement than I saw! I wonder why?
Improvements
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
function/function pointer types). Given the foregoing discussion
about squares and
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
LEA.
Pointer?
Andrei
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
function/function pointer types). Given the
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:43:49 -0600, David B. Held
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I thought Herb's proposal was more or less definitive. Is that
not what's likely to be presented to the committee? If we got template
aliasing as you describe above, then Herb's proposal is just fine with
me.
But
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Here, r_ can't tell if foo is being destructed, or just r_, and that
could be a very important difference.
It usually isn't. I'm tempted to
At 11:38 AM 1/30/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
I read a paper yesterday from the latest OOPSLA proceedings
that argued that a class-specific new is almost never a win
compared to a high-quality general purpose allocator like
LEA.
Pointer?
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your test doesn't seem to terminate for me in a reasonable amount of
time (minutes) in any configuration.
That was Cygwin GCC-3.2.
You made me download it.
GNU C++ version 3.2 20020927 (prerelease)
Cygwin
GNU libstdc++ version 20020927
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe,
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
| Greeting,
|
| I would like to request a formal review for my library:
shifted_ptr. It
| consists of a smart pointer optimizing dynamic memory allocations and
| deallocations on the heap, thus lower
One of the many things I'm attempting to do right now is to improve the
testing of Boost.Threads. I'd really like to use a more complex testing
system than seems available with the current Boost tools. Or maybe I'm
wrong, and it is possible. Here's a description of my requirements.
* Test
Philippe A. Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1a99m$fil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
shifted_ptr only works with shifted objects allocated with placement
operator new (size_t, shifted_type const ). In theory it would be
possible
to displace
--- Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:19:53 -0500, David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter D. has effectively argued in the past that void *is* a supertype
of everything (well, every object type, as opposed e.g. to
From: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:20:32 -, John Maddock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you show, with an example, why the code used for named template
arguments can't reasonably use an expression?
It doesn't have access to one, only a type: the usage is take
No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an object
with
operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
create
a function pointer.
So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
I'm trying to make the wndProc point at a member function. I've
At 12:20 PM 1/29/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
This is a minor complaint about the wonderful automatically generated
page at http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/, and perhaps
also which tables we're generating and how we're generating them.
When I'm interested in finding out how a library
At 11:29 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
[Yes, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I really
don't think we should ever be generating documentation directly from
C++ code.]
I can't see any relevance. Care to
At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glenn --
Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least
At 11:05 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
One option would be to dump the tests in some XML format, because we
can
easily transform that into the various HTML pages we'd want with an
XSLT
processor. Sourceforge has xsltproc available on its servers...
Any format that can be processed
At 11:19 AM 1/30/2003, Douglas Gregor wrote:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:05 am, David Abrahams wrote:
Douglas Gregor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:41 am, David Abrahams wrote:
The subject says it all. We should find a workaround for this or
it'll screw up all
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
That's a very imprecise description, and exactly what I mean by
not sure what you really wanted. Even though you think you have
an answer now, I want
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
In real code, I'm sure that's true. However, for the kind of
meaningless benchmark-rustling we're engaged in now, I bet the
class-specific allocator works great ;-)
[...]
I guess it would
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Section 2.5 (Different Declarations) rubs me the wrong way. Thr
proposal does say that some people dislike this, and I guess I'm one of
them.
If
template A,B class X;
template A typedef foo XA,B;
then I'm opposed to typeof(XA,B) != typeof(fooA)
As
Thomas Witt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thanks for submitting. I will contact you as soon as I have found a
review manager. This might take some days.
BTW Volunteers, anybody?
Thomas Witt
Boost Review Wizard
Very appreciated,
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~ref_counted()
{
delete pCount_;
}
bool release(P const)
{
if (!--*pCount_) return true;
pCount_ = 0;
return false;
}
Doesn't release() leak pCount_?
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b19hpd$j79$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19hpd$j79$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
While the generated documention is ok, it is a bit hard to read, because
so much of it appears superfluous. Also, you should consider looking
at other Boost
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[snip]
I guess it would also be possible to allocate a shifted object into some
specific memory page, so operator delete will be able to quickly detect
weither the object is shifted or not. This way it would be possible to
overload the main operator new.
I think
Greg Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I notice that a special operator new must be used
to create objects pointed to by shifted_ptr. Is
this really necessaty? It prevents shifted_ptr
from just being an alternative implementation of
From: DudeSan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an object
with
operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
create
a function pointer.
So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
I'm trying to make the
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
smart_ptr(P p)
: storage(p), ownership(p), checking(), conversion()
{ checking::on_init(p) }
1) storage(p) throws
You missed copying P
Larry Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[snip]
I guess it would also be possible to allocate a shifted object into
some
specific memory page, so operator delete will be able to quickly detect
weither the
Peter Dimov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
005901c2c8a3$e5f86180$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:005901c2c8a3$e5f86180$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
From: David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~ref_counted()
{
delete pCount_;
}
bool release(P const)
{
Peter Dimov said:
From: DudeSan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, this won't work. boost::bind returns a function object, an
object
with
operator() defined, not a function pointer. You can't use bind() to
create
a function pointer.
So, are there any suggestions or ideas that I could use?
I'm
At 04:55 PM 1/29/2003, David B. Held wrote:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Then you've indeed got a problem. There were indications in
some of Beman's earlier explorations that the orthogonal policy
decomposition wasn't
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
smart pointers; both have advantages.
Well, we've managed to hobble
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
[snip]
Oh no, don't tell me GC_malloc was working this way ;)
BTW gc_header *must* have (ip_descriptor *) ?
Only if you want to collect cycles or provide some other means for
accessing the arcs in the pointer graph. As a matter of fact, it may
be better to do
Hi all,
When boost threads library is configured with pthreads, threads are created
using the following code:
res = pthread_create(m_thread, 0, thread_proxy, param);
However, on Solaris this implies the default contentionscope of
PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS (vs. PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM). I didn't
Jeff Garland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the
terms I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are
certainly free to change the terms.
Yes, that's my understanding. Thanks for the confirmation.
I understand that there are no
At 05:41 PM 1/30/2003, David B. Held wrote:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
smart pointers; both
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
The use case I was interested in was an array being managed,
and the conversion to T* also being present.
Ouch! I haven't worked through the details, but I have a gut level
feeling that it's
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
b1c5tk$pbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1c5tk$pbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
~ref_counted()
{
delete pCount_;
}
[...]
Unfortunately, my latest solution brings up a nice little gem from VC++:
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
smart_ptr(P p)
: storage(p), ownership(p), checking(), conversion()
{ checking::on_init(p) }
1)
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
smart pointers; both have
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
isn't so much the move as copy syntax that Howard
Do you want this to be implemented as part of Boost.Test or Boost.Build?
* Test cases/suites need to be defined in a tree hierarchy, where branches
are never run if the parent test doesn't pass.
This could be done in terms of Boost.Test. Not in a current version though.
* These test cases may
I guess it would help if the syntax for all four possibilities
(normal function, templated function, normal function object templated
function object) made it into the Boost.Test documentation.
Syntax is basically the same for all simple (not parameterized tests) cases.
Though I admit
At 06:24 PM 1/30/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
isn't so
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 08:53 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
Sigh...
To be clear, I'll be happy to see a better syntax
in the next standard -- auto_ptr was the best we
could do with the syntax we had, but ...
Agreed on all points. And glad to have your continued support for a
better
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
