The Lumiera »Reference Platform« is now upgraded to Debian/Buster, which provides GCC-14 and Clang-20.
Thus the compiler support for C++20 language features seems solid enough, and C++23,
while still in ''experimental stage'' can be seen as a complement and addendum.
This changeset
* upgrades the compile switches for the build system
* provides all the necessary adjustments to keep the code base compilable
Notable changes:
* λ-capture by value now requires explicit qualification how to handle `this`
* comparison operators are now handled transparently by the core language,
largely obsoleting boost::operators. This change incurs several changes
to implicit handling rules and causes lots of ambiguities — which typically
pinpoint some long standing design issues, especially related to MObjects
and the ''time entities''. Most tweaks done here can be ''considered preliminary''
* unfortunately the upgraded standard ''fails'' to handle **tuple-like** entities
in a satisfactory way — rather an ''exposition-only'' concept is introduced,
which applies solely to some containers from the STL, thereby breaking some
very crucial code in the render entities, which was built upon the notion of
''tuple-like'' entities and the ''tuple protocol''. The solution is to
abandon the STL in this respect and **provide an alternative implementation**
of the `apply` function and related elements.
Future C++ versions will no longer generate default copy operations
once any single one was defined explicitly. So the goal is to kind-of
''enforce the rule of five'' (if you define one, define them all).
However, sometimes one of these special operators must be defined for a different reason,
e.g. because it is defined as protected, yet should not be exposed on the public API.
In such cases, any other copy operation which still is valid in the default form
must be declared explicitly ''as defaulted''
Overall this seems to be quite an improvement --
and it highlights (again) some known instances of questionable design,
which are mostly obsoleted and require clean-up anyway, or (as in the case of the
Placements) indicate »placeholder code« where the actual solution still needs to be worked out
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
...as follow-up to yesterday's decisions
- each Port will just feature a (stable) reference to a ProcID record
- which is deduplicated and likewise refers to deduplicated symbolic tags
- and further spec and hash values are computed on-demand by this entity
__Note__: all functionality belonging to the ''Builder'' can be assumed to run **non-concurrent**
reduce footprint of lib/util.hpp
(Note: it is not possible to forward-declare std::string here)
define the shorthand "cStr()" in lib/symbol.hpp
reorder relevant includes to ensure std::hash is "hijacked" first
- use a dedicated context "dropped off" the TestChainLoad instance
- encode the node-idx into the InvocationInstanceID
- build an invocation- and a planning-job-functor
- let planning progress over an lib::UninitialisedStorage array
- plant the ActivityTerm instances into that array as Scheduling progresses
The class Literal is used as a thin wrapper to mark the fact that
some string parameter or value is assumed to be given *literally*
For the contract this indicates
- that storage is somewhere
- storage is not owned and managed by Literal
- yet storage guaranteed to exist during the whole lifetime of the program
- Literal can not be altered
- Literal is transparently convertible to const char *
Currently I am in the course of building some path abstraction, and for that
task it makes sense to hold an array of Literals (instead of pointers), just
because it expresses the intent way more clear. I do not see anything in the
above mentioned contract to prohibit a default constructed Literal, with the
empty string being the most obvious choice.
Note: there is the class Symbol, which derives from Literal. Symbol takes
arbitrary strings, but *interns* them into a static symbol table.
...under the assumption that the content is normalised,
which means
- leading NULL is changed to Symbol::EMPTY
- missing elements in the middle are marked as "*"
- trailing NULL in extension storage is handled by adjusting nominal extension size
since Symbol instance are now backed by a symbol table,
we can use a much faster hash function by just hashing the
pointer into the symbol table, since the Symbol string content
is already checked at initialisation.
Up to now, we tolerated null pointers in Literal instances.
But we can not tolerate passing a null cString to Symbol initialisation.
Rather, hereby we introduce a dedicated "bottom" Symbol, a valid "null object"
For this task, I've also investigated to use boost::operators
This would only incur a negligible penalty on build times and executable sizes,
however, I don't consider the boost based solution to improve readability,
since many of these comparisons are tricky or subtly different.
Moreover, since boost::operators needs to be mixed-in, the initialisation
of Symbol objects becomes difficult, not to mention the additional base class
information visible in the debugger when inspecting Symbol or Literal objects
For that reason, I decided *against* using Boost here and coded up
all the operators in all combinations manually
...which means, from now on identical input strings
will produce the same Symbol object (embedded pointer).
TODO: does not handle null pointers passed in as c-String properly
right now we have to defeat an unfortunate static assertion in
the standard library, which is expected to go away in the future.
We use a hack to hijack the problematic definition with the preprocessor,
which requires our header to be first.
