cgi-devel

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Scott B. <Ba...@In...>]

Darren,

Have you compiled the 'fcgi/hello_world/' program recently?  In Linux w/
boost 1.42.0 I'm running into quite a few compile issues.  I'm thinking some
of these won't compile in Windows...

Thanks,
SB

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Darren G. <dar...@gm...>]

Hi Scott,

On 27 February 2010 18:21, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:

> Darren,
>
> Have you compiled the 'fcgi/hello_world/' program recently?  In Linux w/
> boost 1.42.0 I'm running into quite a few compile issues.  I'm thinking some
> of these won't compile in Windows...
>

Looks like the last commit broke a few things with FastCGI... I have just
committed some fixes which should have fixed this for now.

Let me know how you get on.

Cheers,
Darren

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Scott B. <Ba...@In...>]

Darren,

Thanks, that works in Linux with a couple minor changes.  I'll get you a
patch soon.  I'll follow it up with the -Wall changes, too.

SB

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...>wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> On 27 February 2010 18:21, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:
>
>> Darren,
>>
>> Have you compiled the 'fcgi/hello_world/' program recently?  In Linux w/
>> boost 1.42.0 I'm running into quite a few compile issues.  I'm thinking some
>> of these won't compile in Windows...
>>
>
> Looks like the last commit broke a few things with FastCGI... I have just
> committed some fixes which should have fixed this for now.
>
> Let me know how you get on.
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>



-- 
Scott Bailey

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Darren G. <dar...@gm...>]

Hi Scott,

On 1 March 2010 17:47, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:

> Darren,
>
> Thanks, that works in Linux with a couple minor changes.  I'll get you a
> patch soon.  I'll follow it up with the -Wall changes, too.
>

Grr, I hope the changes really were minor! Patches are most welcome -
posting it to the list / me is fine.

Cheers,
Darren

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Scott B. <Ba...@In...>]

Darren,

I'm going to post to the list & CC you.  Traffic on the list shows a living
project.

Yeah, the changes are small.  The -Wall changes are more significant.  Lots
of unused variables.  I won't get to this for awhile...

SB

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...>wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> On 1 March 2010 17:47, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:
>
>> Darren,
>>
>> Thanks, that works in Linux with a couple minor changes.  I'll get you a
>> patch soon.  I'll follow it up with the -Wall changes, too.
>>
>
> Grr, I hope the changes really were minor! Patches are most welcome -
> posting it to the list / me is fine.
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>



-- 
Scott Bailey

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Darren G. <dar...@gm...>]

Hi Scott,

On 1 March 2010 19:55, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:

> Darren,
>
> I'm going to post to the list & CC you.  Traffic on the list shows a living
> project.
>

Indeed, thanks.

Yeah, the changes are small.  The -Wall changes are more significant.  Lots
> of unused variables.  I won't get to this for awhile...
>

What version of g++ are you using? I'm suprised these weren't flagged up by
g++ 4.3.2 or MSVC 9.0. Your patch looks ok though and I committed it to
trunk last night.

I'll think I might take a look at the "-Wall -Werror" problems. I suspect
there may be a few more unused variables that need cleaning.

Cheers,
Darren

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Scott B. <Ba...@In...>]

Darren,
Glad the changes looked OK.

Here's my version info:
b2$ g++ --version
g++ (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) 4.3.2
Why does my installation have a problem, but not yours...?  I don't know.

Regarding the unused variables, please look!  I'm in over my head anytime I
look at ASIO, and the first warning I wen to look at was an unused variable
with a default value that was somehow related to ASIO!  I'm not ready to
tackle that, yet!

However, I did get the hello world and echo programs working and modified a
little bit.  Lots of fun!  Thank you very much!

SB


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...>wrote:

>
> Yeah, the changes are small.  The -Wall changes are more significant.  Lots
>> of unused variables.  I won't get to this for awhile...
>>
>
> What version of g++ are you using? I'm suprised these weren't flagged up by
> g++ 4.3.2 or MSVC 9.0. Your patch looks ok though and I committed it to
> trunk last night.
>
> I'll think I might take a look at the "-Wall -Werror" problems. I suspect
> there may be a few more unused variables that need cleaning.
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>
>
-- 
Scott Bailey

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Darren G. <dar...@gm...>]

Hi Scott,

Apologies for the delay, I took some time off. :)

On 2 March 2010 19:58, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:

Regarding the unused variables, please look!  I'm in over my head anytime I
> look at ASIO, and the first warning I wen to look at was an unused variable
> with a default value that was somehow related to ASIO!  I'm not ready to
> tackle that, yet!
>

I've taken a look at the unused variables and will get around to removing
them when I can find the time - rather than just remove them I'd prefer to
obliterate the bits of code that are lying around with unused parameters.
Feel free to ping me on this one!

I'm just about to commit a few changes and cleanups related mostly to
sessions (which should be in working order now). I'll check this with gcc
tomorrow at some point just in case there are issues, unless you get there
first.

Cheers,
Darren

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Scott B. <Ba...@In...>]

Darren,

a quick update and compile shows a collision of role_type:
boost/cgi/common/protocol_traits.hpp:101: error: *declaration of 'typedef
enum boost::cgi::common::role_type *
boost::cgi::common::protocol_traits<boost::cgi::common::tags::cgi>::role_type'
boost/cgi/common/role_type.hpp:24: error: *changes meaning of 'role_type'
from 'enum boost::cgi::common::role_type'*

But, honestly, I don't see why...

I've simply turned off warnings for the time being.  I really am just
tinkering as time allows.  When I was checking into the unused parameters, I
was suspicious that some of those unused parameters should be used...
That's where I decided I was in over my head, at least with the time
allotted at present.

Regardless, I'm glad to see you are still working it.

SB

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Darren Garvey <dar...@gm...>wrote:

> Hi Scott,
>
> Apologies for the delay, I took some time off. :)
>
> On 2 March 2010 19:58, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:
>
> Regarding the unused variables, please look!  I'm in over my head anytime I
>> look at ASIO, and the first warning I wen to look at was an unused variable
>> with a default value that was somehow related to ASIO!  I'm not ready to
>> tackle that, yet!
>>
>
> I've taken a look at the unused variables and will get around to removing
> them when I can find the time - rather than just remove them I'd prefer to
> obliterate the bits of code that are lying around with unused parameters.
> Feel free to ping me on this one!
>
> I'm just about to commit a few changes and cleanups related mostly to
> sessions (which should be in working order now). I'll check this with gcc
> tomorrow at some point just in case there are issues, unless you get there
> first.
>
> Cheers,
> Darren
>



-- 
Scott Bailey

Re: [Cgi-devel] cgi & boost

[Darren G. <dar...@gm...>]

On 24 March 2010 16:20, Scott Bailey <Ba...@in...> wrote:

> Darren,
>
> a quick update and compile shows a collision of role_type:
> boost/cgi/common/protocol_traits.hpp:101: error: *declaration of 'typedef
> enum boost::cgi::common::role_type *
> boost::cgi::common::protocol_traits<boost::cgi::common::tags::cgi>::role_type'
> boost/cgi/common/role_type.hpp:24: error: *changes meaning of 'role_type'
> from 'enum boost::cgi::common::role_type'*
>
> But, honestly, I don't see why...
>

It looks like gcc scoping rules at a first glance. I'll take a look when I
get home.


> I've simply turned off warnings for the time being.  I really am just
> tinkering as time allows.  When I was checking into the unused parameters, I
> was suspicious that some of those unused parameters should be used...
> That's where I decided I was in over my head, at least with the time
> allotted at present.
>
> Regardless, I'm glad to see you are still working it.
>

Hmm, yes. Documentation still pending I'm afraid...

Thanks for the report!

Cheers,
Darren