Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers

Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-17 15:41:11

On 10/17/18 12:27 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
> I really wonder how someone can show that much ignorance if all facts 
> are against him.
> 
> "#111 doesn't show anything", " I have no problem if the author want's 
> to improve his test.  It's just not happening. "
> EVERYONE sees how it does show a crash. 

When I looked at the test my attention was immediately drawn to the 
following:

const char* impossible = "impossible";
return impossible != 
boost::serialization::extended_type_info_typeid<float>::get_const_instance().get_key();

I memory serves me, get_key() will return the address of string of 
characters inside the the address space of the DLL.  This address is 
compared to the address of "impossible" which is an address inside the 
address space of the calling mainline application.  I could not and 
cannot understand what is being tested here. Honestly, when I see this, 
I felt it unproductive to continue. Given that EVERYONE has looked at 
this and no one has seen any problem with it, I wondering if I'm missing 
something really obvious and I would be grateful if anyone could explain 
this to me.

On a different note, I would point out that this whole issue appeared 
when support for visibility for gcc was introduced last year.  This is 
kind of suspicious to me.  An interesting test would be to:

a) find a platform on which test_dll_exported fails
b) rebuild/test with out support for gcc visibility - (by removing 
"visibility=default") the the command line.  And see if the change.

Robert Ramey