Subject: Re: [boost] How do folks test serialization code?
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-05 13:30:12
>> How would you serialize from one format to a different one without
>> breaking it down into "portably small" chunks?
> Of course you have to define the 128 bit integer in terms
> of some other types. But THOSE types should already be
> portably serializable.
Sure, but as I said, exactly what those types are, and how many of them
there are, changes from one platform/compiler to another.
> another way to deal with this is to work a at a more primitive
> level. By marking the 128 integer type as "primitive" and
> defining an output for output/input stream operarate -
> text archives should "just work". Of course these
> operators will have to be implemented with portability
> in mind so the issue is moved to somewhere else. But
> then one probably needs to define these operators in
> any case so for text archives serialization comes for
You mean rely on the usual streaming << >> operators?
For sure I could do that, but full string conversion is crazy expensive
compared to the byte-by-byte scheme I have now.
> for binary and portable binary archives, one might
> need to specialize the serialization operators. For binary
> archives there's not much if anything to do. For
> portable binary archives, one might have to make
> a minor specialization. The portable binary archive
> includes code for handling endianness of arbitrarily
> long integer types. (note that portable binary archive
> isn't complete in anycase in that it doesn't handle
> floating point types - a good GSOC project if
> one wants one.)
I already specialize for binary archives and just write out the bytes.
> So you've got a couple of ways of addressing this.
Thanks, but now I've tested what I have (and verified that the archives are
truly portable at least for 32 and 64 bit systems), I'll stick with what I
have I think,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk