http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78517 <pre>I will be building DLLs for a 32 bit version of Excel 2013. Scott _____ From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Klaim - Joël Lamotte Sent: Sunday, 19 May 2013 2:46 AM To: Boost users list Subject: Re: [Boost-users] 64 bit or 32 bit? On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Scott Alexander &lt;scottalexander&lt; at &gt;bigpond.com&gt; wrote: I have a Windows 8 64 bit OS and would like to use Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows 8. Should I install a 64 bit or 32 bit version of Boost? It only depends on the target application(s): will it (or they) be 32 or 64 bits? Joel Lamotte _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Scott Alexander 2013-05-19T03:06:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78516 <pre> Igor -- Thanks again for the reply. Igor R &lt;boost.lists&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; writes: I think that's a problem if some jobs are slower than others. As an example (with the time axis going down the list): Request Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3 (Type) Queue / Work Queue / Work Queue / Work -------- ------------ ------------ ------------ A (Slow) A B (Fast) A B C (Fast) A B C D (Fast) D / A C E (Fast) D / A E F (Fast) D / A E F G (Fast) D,G / A F At this point, I have two idle thread/services, and one working thread/service with two more tasks queued up. So if I just round-robin across all existing threads/services, I can get fast jobs piled up "behind" slow jobs. By comparison, if</pre> Anthony Foiani 2013-05-18T22:53:08 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78515 <pre> Can't you just "round-robin" them? Why io_service-per-core would give worse scalability than thread-per-core? </pre> Igor R 2013-05-18T21:07:08 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78514 <pre> If some (interface) functions use the std version and some other - the boost one, it'd worsen the interoperability. See the following: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6326757/conversion-from-boostshared-ptr-to-stdshared-ptr In theory, there shouldn't be any difference. In practice, it depends on the implementation you've got, eg. tr1::shared_ptr in MSCV9 was quite buggy. Some std::make_shared implementations may have better performance, than boost::make_shared: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12932348/why-stdmake-shared-has-much-better-performance-than-boostmake-shared </pre> Igor R 2013-05-18T21:00:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78513 <pre> Then there's this solution (Andrés's answer): http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12166513/boostasio-thread-pools-and-thread-monitoring (or: http://preview.tinyurl.com/alot5eo ) If I replace his run_one with poll_one, I think that covers what I'm looking for. I think it solves the scalability concern, because threads that are currently working on other tasks will not be woken by the central pool's notify. Just in case someone else finds this in the archives... Best, Anthony Foiani </pre> Anthony Foiani 2013-05-18T20:57:31 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78512 <pre> Quoting from the documentation: "Composite keys are sorted by lexicographical order, i.e. sorting is performed by the first key, then the second key if the first one is equal, etc. This order allows for partial searches where only the first keys are specified". http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/multi_index/doc/tutorial/key_extraction.html#composite_keys If you need to sort by any arbitrary parameter, make an ordered index based on it. In your example the second index is sorted by member&lt;Element_Entry,size_t,&amp;Element_Entry::Id&gt;. </pre> Igor R 2013-05-18T20:48:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78511 <pre> Igor -- Thanks for the quick reply. Igor R &lt;boost.lists&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; writes: Ok, that makes sense. I think I confused myself: thinking that the per-thread "heartbeat" isn't really application logic, so much as low-level plumbing... Hm. Let stare at that example for a bit. [Ponders] I think I understand what you're getting at. I want to set up an io_service-per-thread, with each io_service having a deadline_timer to handle the heartbeat. The only other complicated bit is selecting an io_service to handle an incoming request. It's a bit irksome to have to trade off the scalability to get this extra feature. I wonder if I can somehow do a double dispatch of sorts, or maybe do some accounting to see if I can make sure I always select an idle io_service if possible. Thanks again for the reply. Best regards, Anthony Foiani </pre> Anthony Foiani 2013-05-18T20:26:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78510 <pre> No, io_service threads are expected to be used for scalability purposes only, and the application logic is expected to be "decoupled" from the threading. What you can do instead is to use multiple io_service's, instead of multiple threads running 1 io_service (see io_service-per-CPU example). </pre> Igor R 2013-05-18T17:54:46 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78509 <pre>From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Scott Alexander Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:48 AM To: boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org Subject: [Boost-users] 64 bit or 32 bit? Hi, I have a Windows 8 64 bit OS and would like to use Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows 8. Should I install a 64 bit or 32 bit version of Boost? All the Boost code is pure C++ and independent of 32 or 64 bit. If you need to build libraries (maybe not - most of Boost is header-only) - only then do you need to worry about building with the right with the 64 options set. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow&lt; at &gt;hetp.u-net.com _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Paul A. Bristow 2013-05-18T17:01:33 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78508 <pre>On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Scott Alexander &lt;scottalexander&lt; at &gt;bigpond.com It only depends on the target application(s): will it (or they) be 32 or 64 bits? Joel Lamotte _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Klaim - Joël Lamotte 2013-05-18T16:45:42 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78507 <pre>Hi, I have a Windows 8 64 bit OS and would like to use Visual Studio Express 2012 for Windows 8. Should I install a 64 bit or 32 bit version of Boost? Thanks, Scott _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Scott Alexander 2013-05-18T03:48:10 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78506 <pre>[snip] this approach does not look good to me: the correctness of the algorithm requires a *single* consumer. however you are consuming from the producer thread, too ... the algorithm expects that only one thread modifies the read pointer and only one the write pointer. cheers, tim </pre> Tim Blechmann 2013-05-18T01:40:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78505 <pre>(cc'ing Tim, the author, as well) As an after thought, maybe I should directly be using / subclassing ringbuffer_base? While that won't allow me to move the read head forward without actually reading, it would allow me to check how much space was available before the first push. cheers, Rich On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Rich E &lt;reakinator&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Rich E 2013-05-17T23:33:25 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78504 <pre>Greetings -- Is there a way to ask the io_service to distribute a particular handler to every thread that is running the service? My use case is per-thread watchdogs, and I need the worker threads to ping the watchdog on some regular interval (e.g., every 5 seconds). I didn't see anything like this in the docs, and I didn't see anything that looked promising when I looked through the source. (I'll freely admit that the ASIO source is beyond my ability to comprehend it without much more study, however.) I can approximate it by having my worker threads do something like this (pseudocode): while ( true ) { boost::system::error_code ec; io_service::poll_one( ec ); if ( ec == stopped ) break; watchdog::ping(); sleep( 500ms ); // trying to balance lag and wakeups } But that has the obvious problems of lag and more wakeups than I really need. To make this hack work, I think I need some calls that probably don't exist; instead of that "sleep" call, I would like t</pre> Anthony Foiani 2013-05-17T21:32:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78503 <pre> Yes -- see &lt;http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/graph/doc/IncidenceGraph.html#sec:out-edges&gt;. </pre> Jeremiah Willcock 2013-05-17T15:18:56 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78502 <pre>Hello, When I have an undirected graph, for edge_descriptor source and target still are defined. That is stated here: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/libs/graph/doc/graph_concepts.html My question. Is edge_descriptor ed = * out_edges(v,undigraph).first; Is there a requirement for graph implementations that source(ed,g) == v ? best regards, andreas </pre> Andreas Fabri 2013-05-17T13:38:55 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78501 <pre>Hi, Subj, Is that possible? for example, one event continues processing, the another one finishes the whole state-machine (some clean-up actions etc). I tried struct Interrupt : public msmf::interrupt_state&lt; boost::mpl::vector&lt;Foo, Bar&gt; &gt; {}; and struct Interrupt : public msmf::interrupt_state&lt; msmf::ActionSequence_&lt; boost::mpl::vector&lt;Foo, Bar&gt; &gt; &gt; {}; - has no effect. Is there another way to achieve this? _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Alexander Mingalev 2013-05-17T12:07:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78500 <pre>Hello, On 14 May 2013 17:10, Yeni Lora &lt;yenisleidi.lora&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; wrote: You need to post more details about the context, otherwise all one can say is that there was some error establishing a TCP connection (one host tried to connect to another, and this one did not respond before time run out). It appears that you are using OpenMPI and the problem originates in the OpenMPI layer -it's apparently not a Boost::MPI coding problem- so you might get more help if you ask on the OpenMPI users mailing list. Regards, Riccardo -- Riccardo Murri http://www.gc3.uzh.ch/people/rm Grid Computing Competence Centre University of Zurich Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich (Switzerland) Tel: +41 44 635 4222 Fax: +41 44 635 6888 _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users&lt; at &gt;lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users</pre> Riccardo Murri 2013-05-17T10:38:29 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78499 <pre>On Thu, 16 May 2013 20:09:58 +0200, Frank Mori Hess &lt;fmh6jj&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; wrote: Thanks, right, the test cases, I always forget they are the good source of information! The example works as expected (difference to previous is only addition of boost::shared_from_raw(this) in constructor): #include &lt;boost/smart_ptr/enable_shared_from_raw.hpp&gt; #include &lt;iostream&gt; struct Parent; struct Child { Child() { std::cout &lt;&lt; "Construct Child" &lt;&lt; std::endl; } ~Child() { std::cout &lt;&lt; "Destruct Child" &lt;&lt; std::endl; } boost::weak_ptr&lt;Parent&gt; parent; }; struct Parent : public boost::enable_shared_from_raw { Parent(boost::shared_ptr&lt;Child&gt; _child) { std::cout &lt;&lt; "Construct Parent" &lt;&lt; std::endl; this-&gt;child = _child; boost::shared_from_raw(this);// necessary for weak_from_raw() to function properly this-&gt;child-&gt;parent = boost::weak_from_raw(this); } ~Parent() { std::cout &lt;&lt; "Destruct Parent" </pre> Slava 2013-05-17T07:22:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78498 <pre>hello all: I have a fairly large code base that has a lot of modules and systems. The problem is that I have a main "engine" object that holds pointers to a lot of created modules and components. I'm trying to find a more dynamic way to do this, and I thought boost might be able to help. As a result, I have a couple of questions. First, I do a lot of manual adding of features. For example, when I add a new command I have to add a engine-&gt;commands.AddCommand(new CMDFoo()); in an initialization method. Does boost provide some sort of mechenism for dynamically handling this? I also plan on splitting up the main "engine" object and setting up the external modules as singletons. They act alone, but again I'd like to dynamically initialize these. Is there a way on entry to dynamically call specific singleton initialization methods, then at exit call their release methods? I'd like to be able to set some sort of trait on these objects at compile-time that the runtime can use, or somehow generate the c</pre> Littlefield, Tyler 2013-05-17T04:08:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/78497 <pre>Hi, In http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_53_0/doc/html/atomic/usage_examples.html#boost_atomic.usage_examples.mp_queue I see that pop_all_reverse() is implemented as: node * pop_all_reverse(void) { return head_.exchange(0, boost::memory_order_consume); } Shouldn't the memory order be memory_order_acquire in this example? If I'm not mistaken, at least an acquire is required to see all the writes from the thread that did the release. GCC 4.8 also complains that memory_order_consume is not a correct memory ordering for exchange. Thanks </pre> Ioannis Papadopoulos 2013-05-16T21:20:15 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.lib.boost.user