Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [serialization] Linker errors in trunk
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-29 11:30:07


> Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> >>> Sorry, resending as it ended up on the wrong list...
> >>>
> >>> -----------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Since the latest changes in trunk I'm seeing linker errors while
> >>> linking with the serialization library (VS2005 SP1,
> >>> boost_serialization-vc80-mt-gd-1_40.lib):
> >>>
> >>> runtime_support.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol
> >>> "__declspec(dllimport) public: __thiscall
> >>> boost::archive::archive_exception::archive_exception(enum
> >>> boost::archive::archive_exception::_exception_code,char const
> *,char
> >>> const *)"
> >>>
> (__imp_??0archive_exception_at_archive@boost@@QAE_at_W4_exception_code_at_012@PB
> >>> D1_at_Z)
> >>>
> >>> (note the leading underscore in _exception_code)
> >>>
> >>> Which is really strange as this symbol is the only missing one.
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, the library exports the symbol:
> >>>
> >>> boost::archive::archive_exception::archive_exception(
> >>> enum boost::archive::archive_exception::exception_code,
> >>> char const *,char const *);
> >>>
> >>> (note the missing underscore in exception_code)
> >>>
> >>> If I change the first parameter of the archive_exception
> >>> constructor to be a 'int' everything builds fine.
> >>
> >> Ok, I solved it. The MS header file excpt.h has a
> >>
> >> #define exception_code _exception_code
> >>
> >> which leads to problems if not consistently included. Doh! What a
> >> mess.
> >>
> >> The bottom line is, that archive_exception.cpp needs to be compiled
> >> with exactly the same windows headers included (excpt.h gets
> >> included by windows.h) as any sources including
> >> archive_exception.hpp, which is
> >> generally not possible to ensure.
> >>
> >> The only fail-proof way I could see is to always have
> >>
> >> #if defined(BOOST_WINDOWS)
> >> #include <excpt.h>
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> inside archive_exception.hpp, globally mapping exception_code to
> >> _exception_code. Patch attached.
> >> Ok to commit?
>
> Hmmm - let's think about this a little bit. We could
> change "exception_code" to something else. I don't
> think it would break user code since user code
> might refer to the enum member names rather than
> the "exception_code".

Sure, should work as well. It's your decision...
But please try to decide this as soon as possible, as currently it's just
broken.

Thanks!
Regards Hartmut


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk