headers
Robert Ramey | 1 Jan 2012 01:36

Re: boost modularisation status?

Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 12/31/2011 08:08 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
>>
>> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>>
>> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see
>> what I expect to see according to
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizeLibrary
>>
>> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at
>> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>>
>> What is the current status of this?
>
> Modularized Boost is available at
>
> https://github.com/boost-lib/boost

OK - this looks interesting to me. A couple of questions:

a) I don't see any scripts for testing libraries - how does that work
b) I don't see a place where one specifies build parameters, etc.

I'm sure its around somewhere.  Is there a link to a place where
one can find all the information about this alternative system?

Robert Ramey

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dave Abrahams | 1 Jan 2012 01:33
Picon
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: boost modularisation status?


on Sat Dec 31 2011, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:

> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
>
> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>
> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see what I 
> expect to see according to 
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizeLibrary
>
> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at 
> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>
> What is the current status of this?

Glad you asked!

That wiki page is (fortunately) out of date.

We currently have an automated process modularizing boost each time
there's a new commit.  It uses this script
<http://github.com/ryppl/boost-modularize> which you can see at
<https://github.com/ryppl/boost-modularize/commits> is being kept
up-to-date by Daniel Pfeifer.

You can view the status right here: http://j.mp/boost-modularization-bot [1]

(if you see many or all of the buildslaves offline it's because I'm
reorganizing things a bit at the moment)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Dave Abrahams | 1 Jan 2012 02:37
Picon
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: boost modularisation status?


on Sat Dec 31 2011, Dave Abrahams <dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:

> on Sat Dec 31 2011, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
>>
>> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>>
>> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see what I 
>> expect to see according to 
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizeLibrary
>>
>> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at 
>> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>>
>> What is the current status of this?
>
> Glad you asked!
>
> That wiki page is (fortunately) out of date.

I've updated the Wiki page now.  Please let me know what you think.

--

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Andrey Semashev | 1 Jan 2012 08:56
Picon

Re: [filesystem] path thread safety fix impact on POSIX systems

On Saturday, December 31, 2011 18:20:54 Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:00 AM, Andrey Semashev
> 
> That really shouldn't be necessary. Also, I'm trying to hold down
> dependencies on other libraries, or anything that is C++11 only.

Call once mechanism is easy to implement on top of pthread_call_once and 
atomic_count (or only atomic_count, if we rely on the fact that namespace-
scope dynamic initializations are thread-safe). That won't introduce any 
dependencies except for pthreads, which you depend on already I assume.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mateusz Łoskot | 1 Jan 2012 18:47
Gravatar

Re: Fwd: How to build the documentation

On 26 December 2011 20:56, Dave Abrahams <dave <at> boostpro.com> wrote:
> on Sun Dec 25 2011, Mateusz Łoskot <mateusz-AT-loskot.net> wrote:
>> on Sun Dec 25 2011, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I created a small patch for libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/tutorial.qbk
>>>
>>> How can I check that it builds correctly and generates propper html?
>>>
>>> I think you can create new ticket on Trac, with docs component, and attach
>>> the patch.
>
> I don't think that answers his question.  Unfortunately, I don't know
> the correct answer so can't help further.

Dave,

You are right. I have misread the question in rush.
I don't know the correct answer either.

Best regards,
--

-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Eric Niebler | 1 Jan 2012 20:02
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [thread] Boost.Thread defines boost::move which conflicts with Boost.Move

On 12/31/2011 1:58 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> 
> VC10, SVN trunk:
> 
> #include <boost/move/move.hpp>
> #include <boost/thread.hpp>
> 
> int main() 
> {
>     return 0; 
> }
> 
> Results in:
> 
> .../boost/thread/detail/move.hpp(28) : error C2995:
> 'remove_reference<T>::type &&boost::move(T &&)' : function template has
> already been defined .../boost/move/move.hpp(466) : see declaration of
> 'boost::move'
> 
> IMHO, Boost.Thread needs to be changed to rely on Boost.Move for move
> semantics instead of defining its own implementation for boost::move().

That sounds serious. Hartmut, can you file a showstopper for 1.50 so
this doesn't get lost?

--

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Hartmut Kaiser | 1 Jan 2012 20:16
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [thread] Boost.Thread defines boost::move which conflicts with Boost.Move

> On 12/31/2011 1:58 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > VC10, SVN trunk:
> >
> > #include <boost/move/move.hpp>
> > #include <boost/thread.hpp>
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> >     return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Results in:
> >
> > .../boost/thread/detail/move.hpp(28) : error C2995:
> > 'remove_reference<T>::type &&boost::move(T &&)' : function template
> > has already been defined .../boost/move/move.hpp(466) : see
> > declaration of 'boost::move'
> >
> > IMHO, Boost.Thread needs to be changed to rely on Boost.Move for move
> > semantics instead of defining its own implementation for boost::move().
> 
> That sounds serious. Hartmut, can you file a showstopper for 1.50 so this
> doesn't get lost?

I already filed it: #6341. However, shouldn't it be a show stopper for 1.49?

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Eric Niebler | 1 Jan 2012 20:51
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: boost modularisation status?

On 12/31/2011 5:37 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
> on Sat Dec 31 2011, Dave Abrahams <dave-AT-boostpro.com> wrote:
> 
>> on Sat Dec 31 2011, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizationStatus
>>> hasn't been modified in 3 years.
>>>
>>> Also, when I peruse my local copy of the release tree, I don't see what I 
>>> expect to see according to 
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/CMakeModularizeLibrary

This page also needs to be updated or deleted.

>>> That is, I expect to seem include inside of the libraries at 
>>> boost/libs/tr1/include - I don't see this.
>>>
>>> What is the current status of this?
>>
>> Glad you asked!
>>
>> That wiki page is (fortunately) out of date.
> 
> I've updated the Wiki page now.  Please let me know what you think.

I for one am glad to see this effort is ongoing. I'd like to see this
project get more visibility as I see it as important for the long-term
health of Boost. Can we put something on boost.org encouraging people to
try out the (pre-alpha) modularlized boost distro, where to file bugs
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Eric Niebler | 1 Jan 2012 20:53
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [thread] Boost.Thread defines boost::move which conflicts with Boost.Move

On 1/1/2012 11:16 AM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> On 12/31/2011 1:58 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>>>
>>> VC10, SVN trunk:
>>>
>>> #include <boost/move/move.hpp>
>>> #include <boost/thread.hpp>
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Results in:
>>>
>>> .../boost/thread/detail/move.hpp(28) : error C2995:
>>> 'remove_reference<T>::type &&boost::move(T &&)' : function template
>>> has already been defined .../boost/move/move.hpp(466) : see
>>> declaration of 'boost::move'
>>>
>>> IMHO, Boost.Thread needs to be changed to rely on Boost.Move for move
>>> semantics instead of defining its own implementation for boost::move().
>>
>> That sounds serious. Hartmut, can you file a showstopper for 1.50 so this
>> doesn't get lost?
> 
> I already filed it: #6341. However, shouldn't it be a show stopper for 1.49?

Ah. You said trunk. Does this also happen on release? If so, yes, this
should be a showstopper for 1.49.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Eric Niebler | 1 Jan 2012 21:04
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Fwd: How to build the documentation

>>> on Sun Dec 25 2011, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I created a small patch for libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/tutorial.qbk
>>>>
>>>> How can I check that it builds correctly and generates propper html?

Building boost's docs is currently needlessly complex. Try this:

https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BoostDocs/GettingStarted

If you find anything on this page that's out of date, please let us
know. Thanks!

--

-- 
Eric Niebler
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |

Gmane