hkaiser changed the topic of #ste||ar to: STE||AR: Systems Technology, Emergent Parallelism, and Algorithm Research | stellar.cct.lsu.edu | HPX: A cure for performance impaired parallel applications | github.com/STEllAR-GROUP/hpx | Buildbot: http://rostam.cct.lsu.edu/ | Log: http://irclog.cct.lsu.edu/
hkaiser has quit [Quit: bye]
K-ballo has quit [Quit: K-ballo]
K-ballo has joined #ste||ar
hkaiser has joined #ste||ar
K-ballo has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
K-ballo has joined #ste||ar
<Yorlik>
Did something change with make_action? I am getting this error since I compiled and am using 1.3.0 (as opposed to 1.2.1) : error C2027: use of undefined type 'hpx::actions::make_action<....
<zao>
Missing some header that might have been implicitly included in the past, maybe?
<Yorlik>
Could be anything - I hoped someone would know without me digging a ton of gravel ...
<zao>
Someone not me probably knows :)
<Yorlik>
Seems its time to rebuild the doxygen docs ...
<K-ballo>
is there a corresponding DECLARE somewhere?
<K-ballo>
I don't recall the actions details anymore, there was something confusing in their use of declare vs define (vs register?)
<Yorlik>
The code used to work with 1.2.1
<Yorlik>
So - yes
<Yorlik>
Though - wait a sec - I might have deleted sth - checking
<Yorlik>
Yup - its all there
<Yorlik>
But it's possible I did sth without noticing though I can't remember anything
<K-ballo>
so we don't know for sure the code in its current form works with 1.2.1 then?
<Yorlik>
I'm sure 99%
<K-ballo>
not much has changed around basic actions definitions that I know of, but it's possible some new trait or something crept in and some corresponding #include is missing
<Yorlik>
But I know my flaws - lol
<K-ballo>
drop the error message on some paste site, for quick inspection
<Yorlik>
kk
<K-ballo>
another possibility is that we had some bogus earlier instantiation, in the form of implicit return type deduction, unsequenced sfinae, etc
<K-ballo>
*have
<Yorlik>
Do we have any preferred past sites here?
<K-ballo>
so this is not one of your actions, but one of hpx's own
<K-ballo>
chances of an hpx bug just increased to 99.9%
<Yorlik>
:(
<zao>
VS 2019, eh?
<Yorlik>
Yup
<Yorlik>
Vs2019, boost 1.70, hpx 1.3.1
<K-ballo>
presumably controller.hpp is using the remote latch? show me how you include its headers
<Yorlik>
its using #include <hpx/runtime/components/component_factory_base.hpp> and the ..#hpx.hpp
<K-ballo>
99.999%
<Yorlik>
If you want me help track this down just tell me what to do - I'm also open for a live session with screensharing
<K-ballo>
there's a bit of a problem in that the declaration and the definitions are in the same header
<K-ballo>
there must be an explicit specialization declaration somewhere, otherwise it would be impossible to hit an undefined type error
<K-ballo>
but I don't think we have those...
<K-ballo>
I think we may have, ages ago
<Yorlik>
I get wiggles on HPX_DEFINE_COMPONENT_ACTION
<Yorlik>
I think I'm missing a header
<Yorlik>
It thinks the macro is a funbc
<Yorlik>
*function
<Yorlik>
doxygen is still chewing - lol
<K-ballo>
could it be a circular include?
<Yorlik>
possible - but I am trying hard to avoid these and all my headers are guarded
<K-ballo>
I don't see how it is possible for HPX_DEFINE_COMPONENT_ACTION to see the make_action declaration, but not the definitions a couple lines below
<K-ballo>
I must be misreading that error
<zao>
Preprocess with /P and squint at the gigantic output, maybe?
<Yorlik>
Inside the constroller class definition in my header i have this: // resume a suspended game