Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++?

I want to include DMC++ in a perf test.

"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

>Anyone got a working set of Boost files for DMC++?

I'll email you the updated diff tonight.
dan

"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

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
>
>
>
>
>
>

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.

"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
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.

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

"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
hoping to
> include it on the CD for my book, which must be readied in by
mid-March.
>

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

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.

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!