Thanks for the response. Yes, I am using the no rtti option. I downloaded test_no_rtti.cpp and got it to work as-is. I then made the following changes:
1) Move polymorphic_base's definition into its own header file.
2) Move polymorphic_derived1's definition into its own header file.
3) Move the definition of polymorphic_derived1::get_key() into an implementation file.
Making these changes causes the assertion failure. I am using boost v1.36.0 and Visual Studio 2008 9.0.30729.1 SP
Thanks,
Daniel Roberts
I presume you're using the "no rtti" option? get_key used only for those systems which
use which depend on extended_type_info_no_rtti to handle extended_type_info functionality.
with which compiler?, which version of boost?
"Daniel Roberts" <impulsionaudio@gmail.com> wrote in message news:14125aaf0901142057s6ba59d08tc98a6990a5f78bca@mail.gmail.com...
I have a derived class that exports its type and overrides get_key for
serialization through a base class pointer. If I move the definition of
the overridden get_key function out of the header into a cpp file, an
assertion fails on line 49 of extended_type_info.cpp.
Take a look at the example "test_no_rtti". the class polymorphic_derived has a get_key
declaration - but the get_key definition is not inline. This would seem identical your case.
You might want to make a small variation of test_no_rtti such that the definition of
polymorphic_derived1::get_key defintion is moved to a separate source and verify that
it builds and runs correctly.
If I define any other functions in the cpp file, I get a linker
error saying that the get_key symbol is already defined. It looks to me
that any serializable derived class must be completely defined in the
header file. Is this correct?
If so, why does such a limitation exist?
I don't think this limitation exists
Thank you
Robert Ramey