Boost Users :
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-27 15:22:01
Hugh Hoover wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 08:51, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> *** Hmmm - I'll look into this. I would have expected that
>> additional code
>> would be generated if and only if <boost/archive/...
>> headers are included. If these are included only once, I wouldn't
>> any multiple definitions. The top of export.hpp
>> includes the following:
>> // if no archive headers have been included this is a no op
>> // this is to permit BOOST_EXPORT etc to be included in a
>> // file declaration header
>> #if ! defined(BOOST_ARCHIVE_BASIC_ARCHIVE_HPP)
>> #define BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT_GUID_ARCHIVE_LIST(T, K, ASEQ)
>> which I would expect would make a BOOST_EXPORT an effective no-op
>> if no
>> archive files are included.
> I'll chime in, as I'm having exactly the same issue, but on darwin/
> gcc-4 with code in multiple dynamically loaded libraries... (I have
> other issues too, I get to those later)
> The problem is that although export.hpp is only included once per
> generated .o file, there are multiple .o files all including the same
> headers - and each therefore generates the same template
> instantiations, thereby causing the multiple definitions during
> linking. Also - the same headers may be included in multiple shared
> libraries, exacerbating the problem with the same code instantiated
> into multiple libraries - a serious problem if there are singletons.
> I may not be understanding this correctly - here's what >I< think
> needs to happen - please correct me.
> For any derived class, there is a set of code (templates) that need
> to be instantiated for each archive type (specifically, the list
> boost::archive::detail::known_archive_types::type, for the templates
> guid_initializer<T> and export_instantiate<T, archive_list>)
> From what I see, these are NOT declarations required by the other
> serialization code, but singletons that, during construction,
> register the serializers to the derived classes with the
> extended_type_info class registry. Is that incorrect?
> If the above is correct, then the BOOST_EXPORT_CLASS should only be
> in exactly one implementation file (.cpp, .C, .cc, whatever). And
> also, THAT implementation file should ONLY be linked into one shared
Not quite. There should be only one source module which includes
boost/archive/... declarations. If there is more than one of these
then there is a risk of multiple definitions. My practice is to:
a) include all boost/serialization/.. headers in each class file.
b) include NO boost/archive/... headers in any class file
c) make a "template instantiation module" which instanticiates
code for all archives I plan to use. This can be either in the
app or in a library.
d) lihk and execute without problem.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net