Re: [boost] Re: io operations for stl containers?

2003-02-05 Thread Vladimir Prus
Terje Slettebø wrote: By the way, just for fun. Adding the following output operator for arrays, to the header I gave in the previous posting: --- |O|X|O| --- |X|X|O| --- |O|O|X| --- Shall we play a game? :) Sure thing :-) I guess you maybe got the War Games

[boost] Some comments about the regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Guillaume Melquiond
Hi, I tried to use the regression tests with the interval library; and it worked: I just ran run_tests.sh on a linux computer with gcc 3.2.2 and intel cc 7.0 and looked at the results. So, if nobody objects or does it before me, I will modify status/Jamfile so that it automatically handles the

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: At 05:06 PM 2/4/2003, Matthias Troyer wrote: I have run the regression tests on a Cray SV1 system using the Cray C++ 3.6 compiler and posted the results on http://www.comp-phys.org/boost/cs-sn9626.html Why don't you consider

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Samuel Krempp
Le mer 05/02/2003 à 10:27, Matthias Troyer a écrit : It seems that on all Crays the macros CRAY and cray are defined. If one wants to be machine specific, we got this information recently: On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 05:58 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: On the Cray T3D, Cray T3E, and Cray

RE: [boost] mpl::is_sequence incomplete_type ?

2003-02-05 Thread Aleksey Gurtovoy
Andreas Huber wrote: Hi there Hi Andreas, I tried to use mpl::is_sequence on an incomplete type and ran into errors suggesting that the argument must not be incomplete (I'm using MSVC 7.0). I assume this cannot be fixed, right? It might be possible to fix it, but it will require some

RE: [boost] Re: some more questions on MPL and Borland

2003-02-05 Thread Aleksey Gurtovoy
Joel de Guzman wrote: Yaiks! I hope it gets fixed soon. Spirit has been committed to the boost CVS now and I just switched to MPL so Spirit relies on MPL now. If you look at the errors more closely, you'll see that it's not MPL, but 'is_convertible' that is broken, for Borland 5.5.1; yes,

Re: [boost] Re: some more questions on MPL and Borland

2003-02-05 Thread Joel de Guzman
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote: Joel de Guzman wrote: Yaiks! I hope it gets fixed soon. Spirit has been committed to the boost CVS now and I just switched to MPL so Spirit relies on MPL now. If you look at the errors more closely, you'll see that it's not MPL, but 'is_convertible' that is broken,

Re: [boost] Re: Array support [wasSmartPtr(Loki)-auto_ptr/movec'torissue]

2003-02-05 Thread Peter Dimov
Howard Hinnant wrote: Custom deleter policy + implicit conversion policy - converting constructors - converting assignment operators == smart pointer that handles arrays. - operator* - operator- - static_cast - dynamic_cast - incomplete type support - auto_ptr construction/assignment :-)

Re: [boost] Re: io operations for stl containers?

2003-02-05 Thread Terje Slettebø
From: Paul A. Bristow [EMAIL PROTECTED] This looks really neat - and potentially very useful. Thanks. :) Sadly, array is one of the most interesting cases - so I'm sure I won't be the only one 'watching this space'. I've looked more into it, and it seems this is a problem not just for MSVC,

[boost] Re: mpl::is_sequence incomplete_type ?

2003-02-05 Thread Andreas Huber
Aleksey, It might be possible to fix it, but it will require some work. Let me know if it's important for you, and I'll move it up in my TODO list. Well, it is not that important since mpl::is_sequence is only used to provide some syntactic sugar. I could just as well tell my users that they

Re: [boost] Re: some more questions on MPL and Borland

2003-02-05 Thread John Maddock
If you look at the errors more closely, you'll see that it's not MPL, but 'is_convertible' that is broken, for Borland 5.5.1; yes, hopefully things will be restored soon (John?). Yep, done, apologies for the interruption, normal service will be restored soon :-) John Maddock

Re: [boost] is_class

2003-02-05 Thread John Maddock
I noticed that is_class actually detects classes only for the Metrowerks and the VC++, other compilers use a fall-back implementation which works by detecting everything but classes and thus everything which remains has to be a class. This is IMHO broken as i.e. member functions are detected

Re: [boost] Borland specific defects : new config defines?

2003-02-05 Thread John Maddock
Most my porting to borland recently has involved a couple of new bugs introduced in BCB6. Rather than testing compiler and version everywhere, should I instead create some BOOST_SOME_DEFECT macros in the borland config file and test for those instead? If so, any suggestions for the macro

Re: [boost] Re: io operations for stl containers?

2003-02-05 Thread Terje Slettebø
From: Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] const int array[3]; std::cout array; MSVC 7 - C Intel C++ 7 - C g++ 3.2 - C const char array[3]; std::cout array; MSVC 7- A (S or C) Intel C++ 7 - C g++ 3.2 - C std::cout Test; MSVC 7 - A (S or C) Intel 7 - C

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:25:52 -0500, Dave Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case it would seem likely that it could be fixed by reverting to C-style cast, no? I've seen in the CVS that the casts are to support enums. But the documentation for integral_c says An Integral Constant is a

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Fernando Cacciola
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:03:05 -0300, Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Abrahams wrote: On Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:05 AM [GMT+1=CET], Joel de Guzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[boost] Re: Borland specific defects : new config defines?

2003-02-05 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 12:02:17 -, John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: basically they put C lib functions in namespace std, and C++ library code in namespace stlport, and then use: namespace std{ using namespace stlport; } to import the STLport code into std. Unfortunately it doesn't work

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Fernando Cacciola
Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:25:52 -0500, Dave Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case it would seem likely that it could be fixed by reverting to C-style cast, no? I've seen in the CVS that the

[boost] [BGL] Graph concept docs problem

2003-02-05 Thread Vladimir Prus
Jeremy, I see this in docs: boost::graph_traitsG::directed_category The choices are directed_tag and undirected_tag. However, the following code: typedef typename boost::graph_traitsMutableGraph::directed_category dir; dir()[10]; Produces this message:

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Fernando Cacciola
Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message b1r24q$c16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b1r24q$c16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) + 1 next; typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) - 1 prior; [snip] I agree, at least in theory; though I

Re: [boost] Re: Re: is_class

2003-02-05 Thread Daniel Frey
Peter Dimov wrote: Paul Mensonides wrote: [deep breath] I think that he thought that you might have thought that the cv-qualified specializations would match pointers-to-cv-qualified-member-functions rather than just cv-qualified-pointers-to-members. Yes, exactly. Apologies for

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Pavel Vasiliev
Obviously you missed the delights of reading Karl May's Winnetou when you were a kid :o). :-) Yes, I've missed this. I started to read in English not too long time ago. [snip] Looks great. However, all these behaviors can be, and most were, trivially implemented as policies of SmartPtr,

RE: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Jeff Garland
Another problem is that the type long long exists but is not supported by the standard library (e.g. the operator (std::ostream, long long) is not defined). Since long and long long are both 64 bit there is actually no need to ever use long long. I'll have to check why long long is used

[boost] Cleaned doc + displaced operator new example

2003-02-05 Thread Philippe A. Bouchard
Greeting, I have cleaned up the documentation and added a dummy example of a displaced operator new and operator delete (displaced.cpp). It takes for granted that each library will deallocate its previously allocated block. In this case it is not really a problem since I am using STL

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Daniel Frey
Pavel Vasiliev wrote: Conclusion: IMO, policy-based implementations like Loki::SmartPtr and fixed ones like boost::shared_ptrT or my refc_ptrT serve different needs. Do I say something new? Hardly. Hoare/Knuth: Premature optimization is the root of all evil Me: Premature flexibility is

Re: [boost] is_class

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:37 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That given, a member-function-pointer should match is_class, shouldn't it? In fact all pointers should IMHO match is_class with this implementation. Maybe it's just me but the boost source is feeling

[boost] Cray customization for Boost.Config

2003-02-05 Thread Dan Gohman
Here's what I've made so far the a Cray platform and compiler config file. As Matthias pointed out, a reasonable stdint.h is available, so having this configuration makes the __crayx1 customizations to boost/cstdint.hpp unnecessary. Also as Matthias mentioned earlier, the Cray C++ library is

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:32 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pavel Vasiliev wrote: Conclusion: IMO, policy-based implementations like Loki::SmartPtr and fixed ones like boost::shared_ptrT or my refc_ptrT serve different needs. Do I say something new? Hardly.

Re: [boost] Re: Re: is_class

2003-02-05 Thread Peter Dimov
Daniel Frey wrote: Peter Dimov wrote: Yes, exactly. Apologies for the confusion. It is a common mistake to provide only R T::* and expect that to match all pointers to members. To get back to your earlier post, int (X::*pf) () const; is not the same as typedef int (*F) () const; Should

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 02:56 PM, Jeff Garland wrote: The lack of support of standard library functions associated with long long is a problem on other platforms and other functions (eg: std::abs). This has been a headache for me using the int64_t in date-time. So I presume that the

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Samuel Krempp wrote: Le mer 05/02/2003 à 10:27, Matthias Troyer a écrit : It seems that on all Crays the macros CRAY and cray are defined. If one wants to be machine specific, we got this information recently: On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:11 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking into it but already have a conjecture. When using signed 64 bit integers the Cray compiler (with optimization turned on) uses the floating point units to actually perform the operations

Fwd: Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Toon Knapen
On Wednesday 05 February 2003 10:27, Matthias Troyer wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Beman Dawes wrote: After we get the regrssion tests to work, there will be a special challenge for ublas or MTL-3: Calling the BLAS routine where appropriate will be essential in getting

RE: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Jeff Garland
Curiously the one failure for date-time was in handling of big time durations. The failure is probably an overflow problem, which can happen if you try to use a plain 32-bit integer to get nano-second resolutions and large time durations. Nano-second resolution is the default

[boost] Re: io operations for stl containers?

2003-02-05 Thread Jason House
Terje Slettebø wrote: It should handle maps and pairs reasonably well. I think that I have the same complaints about this as io_manip The saving of information to the stream means that you can affect all future output... For instance, if you have a type mapcustom_object,

Re: [boost] is_class

2003-02-05 Thread Daniel Frey
Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:37 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That given, a member-function-pointer should match is_class, shouldn't it? In fact all pointers should IMHO match is_class with this implementation. Maybe it's just me but the

[boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread David B. Held
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [...] Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but currently that seems to be overkill, both in unnecessary complexity and performance losses. Though this my opinion may

[boost] Do Jamfiles need copyrights?

2003-02-05 Thread Beman Dawes
Bjorn Karlsson and I are wondering if Boost should require copyrights on Jamfiles. Obviously if a Jamfile author wants to copyright a Jamfile he or she creates, that fine. But what about Jamfiles where the author didn't add a copyright? Do the lawyers care, or are these files to minor to

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Gennaro Prota
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:30:01 -0300, Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Enumerations are not integral types. Also, the presence of next and prior exposes the use with enumerators to undefined behavior. Do we really want that? Good

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:55 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:32 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Premature flexibility is the root of all evil Stone me, Andrei :o) I

Re: [boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:14 AM [GMT+1=CET], David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [...] Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but currently that seems to be

Re: [boost] Some comments about the regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Beman Dawes
At 03:56 AM 2/5/2003, Guillaume Melquiond wrote: Hi, I tried to use the regression tests with the interval library; and it worked: I just ran run_tests.sh on a linux computer with gcc 3.2.2 and intel cc 7.0 and looked at the results. So, if nobody objects or does it before me, I will modify

Re: [boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Pavel Vasiliev
David B. Held wrote: Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [...] Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but currently that seems to be overkill, both in unnecessary complexity and performance losses. Though

Re: [boost] Do Jamfiles need copyrights?

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:18 AM [GMT+1=CET], Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bjorn Karlsson and I are wondering if Boost should require copyrights on Jamfiles. Obviously if a Jamfile author wants to copyright a Jamfile he or she creates, that fine. But what about Jamfiles

[boost] shared_ptr question (with respect to thread safety)

2003-02-05 Thread Trey Jackson
All, (Note: I'm not critiquing the design choices, just trying to understand the choices and the behavior of the implementation) I read in the docs that simultaneous reads are ok, but simultaneous read/write or write/write are not. Ok, seems like a valid set up. When I looked at the

[boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread David B. Held
Dave Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 04dc01c2cd3a$219279c0$7901a8c0@penguin">news:04dc01c2cd3a$219279c0$7901a8c0@penguin... [...] Lots of ways. For example, the smart pointer objects could be bigger than neccessary. ;) I'm working on it! [...] Type generators are overkill,

Re: [boost] Do Jamfiles need copyrights?

2003-02-05 Thread Martin Wille
Beman Dawes wrote: Bjorn Karlsson and I are wondering if Boost should require copyrights on Jamfiles. Jamfiles are part of the build system; they won't become part of a an executable. So everything is fine when a vendor ships a binary or a DLL. However, when Boost is incorporated to some other

[boost] A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread Ove Svensson
Hi, First I would like to apologize if what I am going to propose have already been suggested, discussed and rejected. If that is the case, please ignore this message. I would like to suggest a new interface (and implementation) for boost:thread. A problem with the current version

Re: [boost] Some comments about the regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Beman Dawes
At 03:56 AM 2/5/2003, Guillaume Melquiond wrote: However, something bothers me. In the big array with all the tests and compilers (cs-something.html), library names are wrong. For example, all the tests for ublas and interval are mixed under the same library called numeric. Is it possible for the

Re: [boost] Some comments about the regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Alkis Evlogimenos
On Wednesday 05 February 2003 09:11 am, Beman Dawes wrote: Last point, is there something wrong with the linux computer used for the regression tests on http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/ ? With gcc 3.2, it fails 179 tests. When I gave it a try for the interval library, I got a

Re: [boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:00 PM [GMT+1=CET], David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Type generators are overkill, since unlike with iterator adaptors there's no need to preserve type identity. Normal inheritance will work just fine. That's a good point. Do you think

[boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Fernando Cacciola
Gennaro Prota wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:30:01 -0300, Fernando Cacciola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Enumerations are not integral types. Also, the presence of next and prior exposes the use with enumerators to undefined behavior. Do we

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:11 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking into it but already have a conjecture. When using signed 64 bit integers the Cray compiler (with optimization turned

[boost] Minimal test tool - very minor comments

2003-02-05 Thread Paul A. Bristow
An absolutely invaluable tool. Perhaps worth documenting for MSVC 7.0 (and probably 6.5?) 1 Need to have language extensions enabled. (for WINNT?) 2 Need to have /EHa rather than /EHs for async exceptions. (for WINNT?) 3 std for loop scope is OK. 4 Warnings level 4 ok, (except get two

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:04 PM [GMT+1=CET], Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:11 AM [GMT+1=CET], Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am looking into it but

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 08:22 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:04 PM [GMT+1=CET], Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually there were two problems. One was the one you mentioned above. The other was that we needed either a masking to 32 bits or

Repost: [boost] [regex] Linker errors with MSVC

2003-02-05 Thread Hartmut Kaiser
I'm reposting this, because I think, that this bug should be fixed, but there wasn't any response to the first mail. I would try to fix it myself, but the errors are so weird, that I'm not able to grasp, how to do it :-) Regards Hartmut -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [boost] A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread William E. Kempf
First I would like to apologize if what I am going to propose have already been suggested, discussed and rejected. If that is the case, please ignore this message. I would like to suggest a new interface (and implementation) for boost:thread. A problem with the current version

Re: [boost] shared_ptr question (with respect to thread safety)

2003-02-05 Thread Peter Dimov
Trey Jackson wrote: All, (Note: I'm not critiquing the design choices, just trying to understand the choices and the behavior of the implementation) I read in the docs that simultaneous reads are ok, but simultaneous read/write or write/write are not. Ok, seems like a valid set up. When

[boost] Re: Cleaned doc + displaced operator new example

2003-02-05 Thread Philippe A. Bouchard
Philippe A. Bouchard wrote: Greeting, I have cleaned up the documentation and added a dummy example of a displaced operator new and operator delete (displaced.cpp). It takes for granted that each library will deallocate its previously allocated block. In this case it is not really a

[boost] Re: Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Daniel Frey
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:08:21 +0100, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:55 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:32 AM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Premature flexibility

Re: [boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread William E. Kempf
Hi Ove, f. It shall be possible to send extra information, as an optional extra argument to the boost::thread ctor, to the created thread. boost::thread::self shall offer a method for retrieving this extra information. It is not required that this information be passed in a

Re: [boost] A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread William E. Kempf
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:04 PM [GMT+1=CET], William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I would like to see is a new boost::thread implementation which meets the following requirements. a. There shall be two interfaces to a thread. One for creation of a thread, from

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Peter Dimov
David Bradley wrote: Q. I am not convinced. Default parameters can be used where appropriate to hide the complexity. Again, why not policies? A. Template parameters affect the type. See the answer to the first question above. I don't get this argument. Isn't that exactly what

[boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Andrei Alexandrescu
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Obviously you missed the delights of reading Karl May's Winnetou when you were a kid :o). :-) Yes, I've missed this. I started to read in English not too long time ago. Same here, I didn't speak

Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

2003-02-05 Thread Rene Rivera
[2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: Howdy, I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the intel configuration file for boost build. I have received some bug reports that don't show up unless that flag is enabled. Since I understand little of how boost build works, what follows is

Re: [boost] Some comments about the regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Alkis Evlogimenos
On Wednesday 05 February 2003 09:11 am, Beman Dawes wrote: Sound suspicious. Alkis? When I run the tests and pass with all the toolsets at once the gcc toolsets uses gcc2.95.3 configuration. Part of the script that creates gcc2953-tools.jam: cat

Re: [boost] Cray customization for Boost.Config

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
Hi Dan, Thanks for your input regarding the Cray X1. My efforts to port my codes to Cray vector machines are aimed at using an X1 in the future, and I use our SV1 machines at this time mainly to sort out problems, to vectorize my codes and for first tests. On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at

Re: [boost] Results of Cray SV1 regression tests

2003-02-05 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Toon Knapen wrote: On Wednesday 05 February 2003 10:27, Matthias Troyer wrote: After we get the regrssion tests to work, there will be a special challenge for ublas or MTL-3: Calling the BLAS routine where appropriate will be essential in getting any

Re: [boost] Do Jamfiles need copyrights?

2003-02-05 Thread Beman Dawes
At 01:16 PM 2/5/2003, Martin Wille wrote: Beman Dawes wrote: Bjorn Karlsson and I are wondering if Boost should require copyrights on Jamfiles. Jamfiles are part of the build system; they won't become part of a an executable. So everything is fine when a vendor ships a binary or a DLL.

Re: [boost] Re: Array support[wasSmartPtr(Loki)-auto_ptr/movec'torissue]

2003-02-05 Thread Paul Mensonides
Peter Dimov wrote: Howard Hinnant wrote: Custom deleter policy + implicit conversion policy - converting constructors - converting assignment operators == smart pointer that handles arrays. - operator* - operator- Not these two--at least not for any reasons that I see. - static_cast -

Re: [boost] Re: Re: is_class

2003-02-05 Thread Paul Mensonides
Peter Dimov wrote: (Hi, Peter. I'm merging two different posts on this subject and replying to both simultaneously.) Yes, exactly. Apologies for the confusion. It is a common mistake to provide only R T::* and expect that to match all pointers to members. To get back to your earlier post,

Re: [boost] Re: integral_c on g++2.95.3

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Gennaro Prota [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: needed is a strong word :-) If you qualify the name: typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) + 1 next; typedef integral_cT, (integral_cT, N::value) - 1 prior; then Borland digests it. Nice

[boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread Wolfgang Bangerth
double d; threaddouble t = spawn(foo)(a,b,c); // do something else d = thread.return_value(); A solution like this has been proposed before, but I don't like it. This creates multiple thread types, instead of a single thread type. I think this will only make the

Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

2003-02-05 Thread Rene Rivera
[2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote: [2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the [ ... ] Some questions... Are the errors in Boost code, or your code? err...both (boost code that happens to be my

Re: [boost] Re: io operations for stl containers?

2003-02-05 Thread Terje Slettebø
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] Terje Slettebø wrote: It should handle maps and pairs reasonably well. I think that I have the same complaints about this as io_manip The saving of information to the stream means that you can affect all future output... For instance,

Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:58 PM [GMT+1=CET], Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote: [2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the [ ... ] Some questions... Are the errors in Boost

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread David Bradley
Peter Dimov wrote: How do you write a factory function that doesn't pass a smart pointer across library boundaries? I guess it depends on what you're defining as library. I'm thinking of things like DLL's and Unix style shared libraries as opposed to staticly linked libraries. In these

Re: [boost] shared_ptr question (with respect to thread safety)

2003-02-05 Thread Trey Jackson
Peter Dimov wrote: The overhead is usually acceptable, even with a plain pthread_mutex. Agreed. With that in mind, why wasn't the shared_ptr *also* protected by a mutex? Thereby making the simultaneous read/write safe (safe in that no memory would be leaked b/c the pointers written/read).

[boost] on operator T* for array access

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
It just occurred to me that this trick only works when the underlying pointer type is a real pointer. In other words, if smart_ptr is to be able to provide array access, while wrapping arbitrary pointer-like types, an operator[] is still required.

Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

2003-02-05 Thread Ronald Garcia
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:58 PM [GMT+1=CET], Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote: [2003-02-05] Ronald Garcia wrote: I would like to request the addition of the -ansi flag to the [ ...

Re: [boost] on operator T* for array access

2003-02-05 Thread Paul Mensonides
- Original Message - From: Dave Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] It just occurred to me that this trick only works when the underlying pointer type is a real pointer. In other words, if smart_ptr is to be able to provide array access, while wrapping arbitrary pointer-like types, an

[boost] Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Alexander Terekhov
David B. Held wrote: Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... [...] In my implementation of refc_ptr operator= performs incrementing/decrementing within a single guarded section (since the only global instance of interl. op. mutex

[boost] Re: A new boost::thread implementation?

2003-02-05 Thread Alexander Terekhov
Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: [...] async_resultdouble res; thread t(bind(res.call(), a, b, c)); // do something else d = res.value(); // Explicitly waits for the thread to return a value? This does the same, indeed. Starting a thread this way is just a little more complex (and -- in my

Re: [boost] [build] request for modification.

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:26 PM [GMT+1=CET], Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dave Abrahams wrote: On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 5:58 PM [GMT+1=CET], Ronald Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Rene Rivera wrote: [2003-02-05]

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:37 PM [GMT+1=CET], David Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I can tell, since smart_ptr has no traits, there's no way for library ^ You must mean shared_ptr implementors to deal with this scenario, other than to abandon smart

Re: [boost] 1.30.0 release schedule

2003-02-05 Thread Beman Dawes
At 11:31 AM 1/28/2003, Beman Dawes wrote: 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. This schedule is still looking good. I'm taking a mini-vacation

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread David Bradley
Dave Abrahams wrote: Actually, shared_ptr magically deals with this problem by instantiating the deleter at the point where it takes ownership of its resource. As long as that's on the same side of the DLL boundary where the resource was allocated, you're golden. That's something I missed

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation+question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:53 PM [GMT+1=CET], Daniel Frey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which compiler? How were you using intrusive counting? I used some benchmark code which compared several smart-pointers (my own and the boost version). I had a simple class #define LOAD int dummy[2];

[boost] Re: Minimal test tool - very minor comments

2003-02-05 Thread Gennadiy Rozental
Paul A. Bristow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... An absolutely invaluable tool. Perhaps worth documenting for MSVC 7.0 (and probably 6.5?) 1 Need to have language extensions enabled. (for WINNT?) Do I use any nonstandard language extensions?

Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

2003-02-05 Thread Dave Abrahams
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:18 PM [GMT+1=CET], David Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Abrahams wrote: Actually, shared_ptr magically deals with this problem by instantiating the deleter at the point where it takes ownership of its resource. As long as that's on the same side