Re: [boost] Candidate for 1.66.1, if there is one

Subject: Re: [boost] Candidate for 1.66.1, if there is one
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-12-23 21:54:05

AMDG

On 12/23/2017 02:25 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 12/23/17 10:49 AM, Steven Watanabe via Boost wrote:
>>
>> Â (We really want the format
>> to be memorialised for all time, regardless of future
>> changes to the test system). It should be pretty simple
>> to set up for portable archive formats. 
> 
> Right. I'm not even sure it could be done for binary archives given the
> evolution in compilers/libraries etc.
> 

  Actually, I think you could make it work, if you
make the key a list of the sizes of all known
built in types + various standard typedefs
(size_t, ptrdiff_t, streamsize).  New toolchains
that change any of this will automatically go
into a new bin.  We can at least guarantee that
the archives are readable between ABI compatible
toolchains (which is the most that we can reasonably
expect for binary archives).

>> The main problem
>> that I see is sorting out which binary archive is for
>> the current platform.
> 
> since binary archives are not likely to be used for longer term storage,
> the problem would/could be ignored for this case.  Of course someone
> would raise the issue about using serialization to pass data on the wire
> between different versions of the application.
> 
> This is all quite interesting.  But I'm inclined to just accept the fact
> that I/we can't solve every problem.  The number of cases that this
> problem has actually occurred is pretty small, especially when
> 
> Since I burned myself on this in a bad way in may 2010, the number of
> cases that this problem has actually occurred is very, very small.
> Somehow I'm thinking that it won't happen to Mr. King again at least.
> 

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe