c++ - DMC++ & Boost
- "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Jan 13 2004
- "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews kangaroologic.com> Jan 13 2004
- "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Jan 21 2004
- dan <dan_member pathlink.com> Jan 21 2004
- "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Jan 21 2004
- "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews kangaroologic.com> Jan 21 2004
- dan <dan_member pathlink.com> Jan 21 2004
- dan <dan_member pathlink.com> Jan 22 2004
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jan 22 2004
- "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews kangaroologic.com> Jan 22 2004
- dan <dan_member pathlink.com> Jan 14 2004
- "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> Jan 14 2004
Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++? I want to include DMC++ in a perf test.
Jan 13 2004
"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bu2bdl$21ea$1 digitaldaemon.com...Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++? I want to include DMC++ in a perf test.
I've been working a little with Dan Watkins (aka Dan W.) on the project begun by Christof Meerwald of getting a version of boost to work on DMC. The current boost CVS contains a config file for DMC, and some DMC-specific changes made to MPL (and possibly type traits). Dan can give you a diff for boost-1.30.2 which contains essentially the same stuff, plus a little more. My impression is that many of the core libraries should work; unfortunately, all my non-trivial boost code relies heavily on MPL, which still does not compile fully, so I can't say for sure. So far all I have done personally is run the regression tests in the boost config library to determine the defect macros that need to be defined. When I get a chance I'm going to start running the regular boost regression tests to see how much compiles. Jonathan
Jan 13 2004
I've missed my deadline for using it, but am still interested in whether the DMC++ support will be rolled into the main Boost distribution at its next release. Do you know whether it will or not, or is it yet to be decided? "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews kangaroologic.com> wrote in message news:bu2fb1$284l$1 digitaldaemon.com..."Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bu2bdl$21ea$1 digitaldaemon.com...Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++? I want to include DMC++ in a perf test.
I've been working a little with Dan Watkins (aka Dan W.) on the project begun by Christof Meerwald of getting a version of boost to work on DMC. The current boost CVS contains a config file for DMC, and some DMC-specific changes made to MPL (and possibly type traits). Dan can give you a diff for boost-1.30.2 which contains essentially the same stuff, plus a little more. My impression is that many of the core libraries should work; unfortunately, all my non-trivial boost code relies heavily on MPL, which still does not compile fully, so I can't say for sure. So far all I have done personally is run the regression tests in the boost config library to determine the defect macros that need to be defined. When I get a chance I'm going to start running the regular boost regression tests to see how much compiles. Jonathan
Jan 21 2004
In article <bulh04$310g$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...I've missed my deadline for using it, but am still interested in whether the DMC++ support will be rolled into the main Boost distribution at its next release. Do you know whether it will or not, or is it yet to be decided?
The current diff has been incorporated into the upcoming release version of boost, 1.31, as well as the main trunk, by Aleksey Gurtovoy, two nights ago. This does not imply, however, official compatibility, since there are many unresolved issues; but it's a first official attempt. Currently, most of the regression tests fail with DMC due mostly to preprocessing problems, I believe. MPL's Finite State Machine compiles and works, which is what part of boost I needed most urgently, personally. But not all MPL features pass, and I have no idea what the status is for other libraries. Jonathan is still working on it.
Jan 21 2004
"dan" <dan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bumaf3$16p8$1 digitaldaemon.com...In article <bulh04$310g$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...I've missed my deadline for using it, but am still interested in whether
DMC++ support will be rolled into the main Boost distribution at its next release. Do you know whether it will or not, or is it yet to be decided?
The current diff has been incorporated into the upcoming release version
boost, 1.31, as well as the main trunk, by Aleksey Gurtovoy, two nights
This does not imply, however, official compatibility, since there are many unresolved issues; but it's a first official attempt. Currently, most of
regression tests fail with DMC due mostly to preprocessing problems, I
MPL's Finite State Machine compiles and works, which is what part of boost
needed most urgently, personally. But not all MPL features pass, and I
idea what the status is for other libraries. Jonathan is still working on
Thanks for the update. May I ask whether you know when 1.31 is likely to be released? I'm hoping to include it on the CD for my book, which must be readied in by mid-March. Cheers Matthew
Jan 21 2004
"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:bun3nj$2ffm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
Thanks for the update. May I ask whether you know when 1.31 is likely to be released? I'm
include it on the CD for my book, which must be readied in by
Sorry to take so long to reply. I just looked at the CVS for the updcoming 1.31 release. The MPL changes which Dan mailed to Aleksy Gurtovoy have been committed, but Christof Meerwald's fixes have not. This is as I suspected. I wish to post an announcement soon to the boost developers list that I will be willing to coordinate the effort to add support for Digital Mars. This will probably involve discussions with library authors on a library-by-library basis. I know that some library author's are reluctant to make even the most trivial changes. Unfortunately this means that some of the boost libraries which work with Dan's diff for 1.30.2 may not work with 1.31. Jonathan
Jan 21 2004
In article <bun857$2mfs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jonathan Turkanis says...Sorry to take so long to reply. I just looked at the CVS for the updcoming 1.31 release. The MPL changes which Dan mailed to Aleksy Gurtovoy have been committed, but Christof Meerwald's fixes have not. This is as I suspected. Jonathan
I hope you're wrong, Jonathan. The two or three versions of the diffs that I gave to Aleksey, all contained Christoff's original changes. I just emailed you and Aleksey to try and clarify this matter.
Jan 21 2004
False alarm! Only some of Merewald's changes are not incorporated in boost
version 1.31, for various reasons. I re-post Aleksey Gurtovoy's reply to my
email in its entirety below...
******************************************************
Hi Dan,
Sorry, this is totally my fault -- I should have been more clear about
which fixes got incorporated and why. There've been a number of diffs that
I didn't check in because they fall into one of the three categories:
1) unneeded -- the code already compiles as is; for example, fixes in
"boost/any.hpp" and "boost/detail/ob_compressed_pair.hpp" headers fall
into this category;
2) obsolete -- fixes that became obsolete because of the changes in the
corresponding code;
3) untestable -- fixes that seemed relevant but which I couldn't test
because the code was still failing to compile due to other errors --
in most cases preprocessor-related; for instance, 'function' and
'signal' libraries fall into this category.
IOW, all Merewald's (and some of mine) fixes that are still relevant and
would clearly make Boost more DM-friendly are there; other ones are not,
since they are not immediately helpful and cannot be tested. Again,
sorry for any miscommunication on my part.
--
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering
******************************************************
To Walter: I forgot to mention one issue which I tried to deal with in boost
via a workaround, but which was not accepted, as it is really not in the purview
of boost, namely an assert() macro workaround...
#ifdef __DMC__
# ifdef assert
# undef assert
# endif
# ifdef _DEBUG
# define assert(x) do{if(!((x)))asm int 3;}while(0)
# else
# define assert(x) do{(void)(0);}while(0)
# endif
#endif
Specifically, when I use assert() from <cassert>, a failure of an assertion
causes the debugging session to terminate. I've been led to believe that the
correct behavior for assert() is to halt execution, and even allow running or
single-stpping past the failed assertion. The int 3 fix does not allow the
latter in the IDDE, but at least allows me to see the line of code where the
assertion failed.
Cheers!
Jan 22 2004
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> "dan" <dan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:buoh9e$1psr$1 digitaldaemon.com...False alarm! Only some of Merewald's changes are not incorporated in
version 1.31, for various reasons. I re-post Aleksey Gurtovoy's reply to
email in its entirety below... ****************************************************** Hi Dan, Sorry, this is totally my fault -- I should have been more clear about which fixes got incorporated and why. There've been a number of diffs that I didn't check in because they fall into one of the three categories: 1) unneeded -- the code already compiles as is; for example, fixes in "boost/any.hpp" and "boost/detail/ob_compressed_pair.hpp" headers fall into this category; 2) obsolete -- fixes that became obsolete because of the changes in the corresponding code; 3) untestable -- fixes that seemed relevant but which I couldn't test because the code was still failing to compile due to other errors -- in most cases preprocessor-related; for instance, 'function' and 'signal' libraries fall into this category. IOW, all Merewald's (and some of mine) fixes that are still relevant and would clearly make Boost more DM-friendly are there; other ones are not, since they are not immediately helpful and cannot be tested. Again, sorry for any miscommunication on my part. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering ****************************************************** To Walter: I forgot to mention one issue which I tried to deal with in
via a workaround, but which was not accepted, as it is really not in the
of boost, namely an assert() macro workaround... #ifdef __DMC__ # ifdef assert # undef assert # endif # ifdef _DEBUG # define assert(x) do{if(!((x)))asm int 3;}while(0) # else # define assert(x) do{(void)(0);}while(0) # endif #endif Specifically, when I use assert() from <cassert>, a failure of an
causes the debugging session to terminate. I've been led to believe that
correct behavior for assert() is to halt execution, and even allow running
single-stpping past the failed assertion. The int 3 fix does not allow the latter in the IDDE, but at least allows me to see the line of code where
assertion failed. Cheers!
Assert is supposed to exit the program via abort(). Of course, one can modify the behavior for one's own purposes, but I have to ship to the standard.
Jan 22 2004
"dan" <dan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bunlv5$apq$1 digitaldaemon.com...In article <bun857$2mfs$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jonathan Turkanis
Sorry to take so long to reply. I just looked at the CVS for the updcoming 1.31 release. The MPL changes which Dan mailed to Aleksy Gurtovoy have been committed, but Christof Meerwald's fixes have
This is as I suspected. Jonathan
I hope you're wrong, Jonathan. The two or three versions of the
gave to Aleksey, all contained Christoff's original changes. I just
and Aleksey to try and clarify this matter.
I didn't mean to cause a sense of alarm. I just looked through the release candidate and didn't see the changes. The ones I checked were the boost::and and boost::compressed pair. I'm happy that the others are in. My apologies. Jonathan
Jan 22 2004
Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++?
I'll email you the updated diff tonight. dan
Jan 14 2004
"dan" <dan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bu42b5$1qsn$1 digitaldaemon.com...Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++?
I'll email you the updated diff tonight. dan
Thanks
Jan 14 2004