[boost] [thread] SEVERE bug on packaged_task constructor in C++11 mode.
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Vicente J. Botet Escriba
May 21, 2013, 2:24:50 AM5/21/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org, boost...@lists.boost.org
Hi,
There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
C++11 mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596. I believe that this is not
a regression, this have never worked.
Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
identified yet).
Sorry for the disagreement,
Vicente
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
C++11 mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596. I believe that this is not
a regression, this have never worked.
Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
identified yet).
Sorry for the disagreement,
Vicente
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Andrey Semashev
May 21, 2013, 2:42:07 AM5/21/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in C++11
> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/8596<https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596>.
vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in C++11
> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
> I believe that this is not a regression, this have never worked.
>
> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>
> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
> identified yet).
>
Can C++11 code be disabled/removed (i.e. so that only C++03 working variant
>
> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>
> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
> identified yet).
>
is left) as a hotfix for 1.54? Or do you intend to fix it before the
release?
Vicente J. Botet Escriba
May 21, 2013, 1:40:20 PM5/21/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org
Le 21/05/13 08:42, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
their movable classes the Boost.Move needed stuff.
Note that this is not a regression, but a feature that was delivered
with bugged behavior since the beginning. I will try to fix it as soon
as possible. I can not ensure this will however be done for 1.54.
Release managers could you give your advice?
Thanks,
Vicente
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in C++11
>> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/8596<https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596>.
>> I believe that this is not a regression, this have never worked.
>>
>> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
>> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>>
>> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
>> identified yet).
>>
> Can C++11 code be disabled/removed (i.e. so that only C++03 working variant
> is left) as a hotfix for 1.54? Or do you intend to fix it before the
> release?
>
>
This is a possibility, but I'm not sure the C++11 users would add to
> vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in C++11
>> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/8596<https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596>.
>> I believe that this is not a regression, this have never worked.
>>
>> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
>> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>>
>> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
>> identified yet).
>>
> Can C++11 code be disabled/removed (i.e. so that only C++03 working variant
> is left) as a hotfix for 1.54? Or do you intend to fix it before the
> release?
>
>
their movable classes the Boost.Move needed stuff.
Note that this is not a regression, but a feature that was delivered
with bugged behavior since the beginning. I will try to fix it as soon
as possible. I can not ensure this will however be done for 1.54.
Release managers could you give your advice?
Thanks,
Vicente
Vicente J. Botet Escriba
May 21, 2013, 3:58:44 PM5/21/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org
Le 21/05/13 08:24, Vicente J. Botet Escriba a écrit :
forwarding from packaged task to the internal class was incorrect.
The following patch fix the example in ticket and works for all the
ts_packaged_task regression tests.
I'll commit this on trunk once the whole regression tests finish and pass.
Best,
Vicente
svn diff detail/config.hpp future.hpp
Index: detail/config.hpp
===================================================================
--- detail/config.hpp (revision 84336)
+++ detail/config.hpp (working copy)
@@ -13,8 +13,6 @@
#include <boost/thread/detail/platform.hpp>
//#define BOOST_THREAD_DONT_PROVIDE_INTERRUPTIONS
-
-
// ATTRIBUTE_MAY_ALIAS
#if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) > 302 \
@@ -95,9 +93,9 @@
#endif
/// RVALUE_REFERENCES_DONT_MATCH_FUNTION_PTR
-#if defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES || defined BOOST_MSVC
+//#if defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES || defined BOOST_MSVC
#define BOOST_THREAD_RVALUE_REFERENCES_DONT_MATCH_FUNTION_PTR
-#endif
+//#endif
// Default version
#if !defined BOOST_THREAD_VERSION
Index: future.hpp
===================================================================
--- future.hpp (revision 84336)
+++ future.hpp (working copy)
@@ -2275,18 +2275,12 @@
task_object(task_object&);
public:
F f;
-#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
- task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_):
- f(boost::forward<F>(f_))
- {}
-#else
task_object(F const& f_):
f(f_)
{}
task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_):
- f(boost::move(f_)) // TODO forward
+ f(boost::move(f_))
{}
-#endif
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK &&
defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
void do_apply(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(ArgTypes) ... args)
@@ -2837,12 +2831,11 @@
#endif
#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
template <class F>
- explicit packaged_task(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f
+ explicit packaged_task(BOOST_THREAD_FWD_REF(F) f
, typename disable_if<is_same<typename decay<F>::type,
packaged_task>, dummy* >::type=0
)
{
- //typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
- typedef F FR;
+ typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK
#if defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
typedef detail::task_object<FR,R(ArgTypes...)>
task_object_type;
@@ -2921,10 +2914,9 @@
#if ! defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
template <class F, class Allocator>
- packaged_task(boost::allocator_arg_t, Allocator a,
BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f)
+ packaged_task(boost::allocator_arg_t, Allocator a,
BOOST_THREAD_FWD_REF(F) f)
{
- //typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
- typedef F FR;
+ typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK
#if defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
typedef detail::task_object<FR,R(ArgTypes...)> task_object_type;
iMac-de-Vicente-Botet-Escriba:thread viboes$
> Hi,
>
> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
> C++11 mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596. I believe that this is
> not a regression, this have never worked.
>
> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>
>
I think that i have found why this was not working an fix it. The
>
> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
> C++11 mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596. I believe that this is
> not a regression, this have never worked.
>
> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>
>
forwarding from packaged task to the internal class was incorrect.
The following patch fix the example in ticket and works for all the
ts_packaged_task regression tests.
I'll commit this on trunk once the whole regression tests finish and pass.
Best,
Vicente
svn diff detail/config.hpp future.hpp
Index: detail/config.hpp
===================================================================
--- detail/config.hpp (revision 84336)
+++ detail/config.hpp (working copy)
@@ -13,8 +13,6 @@
#include <boost/thread/detail/platform.hpp>
//#define BOOST_THREAD_DONT_PROVIDE_INTERRUPTIONS
-
-
// ATTRIBUTE_MAY_ALIAS
#if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ * 100 + __GNUC_MINOR__) > 302 \
@@ -95,9 +93,9 @@
#endif
/// RVALUE_REFERENCES_DONT_MATCH_FUNTION_PTR
-#if defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES || defined BOOST_MSVC
+//#if defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES || defined BOOST_MSVC
#define BOOST_THREAD_RVALUE_REFERENCES_DONT_MATCH_FUNTION_PTR
-#endif
+//#endif
// Default version
#if !defined BOOST_THREAD_VERSION
Index: future.hpp
===================================================================
--- future.hpp (revision 84336)
+++ future.hpp (working copy)
@@ -2275,18 +2275,12 @@
task_object(task_object&);
public:
F f;
-#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
- task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_):
- f(boost::forward<F>(f_))
- {}
-#else
task_object(F const& f_):
f(f_)
{}
task_object(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f_):
- f(boost::move(f_)) // TODO forward
+ f(boost::move(f_))
{}
-#endif
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK &&
defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
void do_apply(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(ArgTypes) ... args)
@@ -2837,12 +2831,11 @@
#endif
#ifndef BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
template <class F>
- explicit packaged_task(BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f
+ explicit packaged_task(BOOST_THREAD_FWD_REF(F) f
, typename disable_if<is_same<typename decay<F>::type,
packaged_task>, dummy* >::type=0
)
{
- //typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
- typedef F FR;
+ typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK
#if defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
typedef detail::task_object<FR,R(ArgTypes...)>
task_object_type;
@@ -2921,10 +2914,9 @@
#if ! defined BOOST_NO_CXX11_RVALUE_REFERENCES
template <class F, class Allocator>
- packaged_task(boost::allocator_arg_t, Allocator a,
BOOST_THREAD_RV_REF(F) f)
+ packaged_task(boost::allocator_arg_t, Allocator a,
BOOST_THREAD_FWD_REF(F) f)
{
- //typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
- typedef F FR;
+ typedef typename remove_cv<typename
remove_reference<F>::type>::type FR;
#if defined BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_SIGNATURE_PACKAGED_TASK
#if defined(BOOST_THREAD_PROVIDES_VARIADIC_THREAD)
typedef detail::task_object<FR,R(ArgTypes...)> task_object_type;
iMac-de-Vicente-Botet-Escriba:thread viboes$
Eric Niebler
May 21, 2013, 5:25:15 PM5/21/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org
On 13-05-21 10:40 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 21/05/13 08:42, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
>> vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
>>> C++11
>>> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/8596<https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596>.
>>>
>>> I believe that this is not a regression, this have never worked.
>>>
>>> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
>>> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>>>
>>> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
>>> identified yet).
>>>
>> Can C++11 code be disabled/removed (i.e. so that only C++03 working
>> variant
>> is left) as a hotfix for 1.54? Or do you intend to fix it before the
>> release?
>>
> This is a possibility, but I'm not sure the C++11 users would add to
> their movable classes the Boost.Move needed stuff.
>
> Note that this is not a regression, but a feature that was delivered
> with bugged behavior since the beginning. I will try to fix it as soon
> as possible. I can not ensure this will however be done for 1.54.
>
> Release managers could you give your advice?
As you can see from the release schedule
> Le 21/05/13 08:42, Andrey Semashev a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
>> vicent...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a severe bug in packaged_task constructor when compiling in
>>> C++11
>>> mode and giving a copyable functor as parameter, as reported in
>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/**boost/ticket/8596<https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/8596>.
>>>
>>> I believe that this is not a regression, this have never worked.
>>>
>>> Until I find a fix, the packaged_task could be used only with free
>>> functions and with movable functors when compiling in C++11 mode.
>>>
>>> Fortunately there is no regression on C++98 compilers (at least not
>>> identified yet).
>>>
>> Can C++11 code be disabled/removed (i.e. so that only C++03 working
>> variant
>> is left) as a hotfix for 1.54? Or do you intend to fix it before the
>> release?
>>
> This is a possibility, but I'm not sure the C++11 users would add to
> their movable classes the Boost.Move needed stuff.
>
> Note that this is not a regression, but a feature that was delivered
> with bugged behavior since the beginning. I will try to fix it as soon
> as possible. I can not ensure this will however be done for 1.54.
>
> Release managers could you give your advice?
(http://www.boost.org/development/index.html), the release branch is
open for bug fixes until next Monday. Get a fix checked into trunk and
let tests cycle. Then you can merge to release.
--
Eric Niebler
Boost.org
Vicente J. Botet Escriba
May 23, 2013, 3:27:44 PM5/23/13
to bo...@lists.boost.org
Le 21/05/13 23:25, Eric Niebler a écrit :
Committed revision https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/84414.
A lot of the testers have already cycled this revision and the updated
test that check the bug pass on all of them.
I will merge on Saturday.
Best,
Vicente
A lot of the testers have already cycled this revision and the updated
test that check the bug pass on all of them.
I will merge on Saturday.
Best,
Vicente
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages