Re: [boost] [Boost.Serialization] Crash in current master (1.68)

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Serialization] Crash in current master (1.68)
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-07-02 15:24:50

On 7/2/18 6:40 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
> 
>> Although crashing is not observed with the slightly older Boost 
>> releases (e.g. 1.66, 1.65.1, 1.64, etc.), intentionally isolating 
>> Boost.Serialization as Gavin describes fails, with the already 
>> described lack of destructor invocations and memory leak.

> Did you test the code I sent around with static boost and those 
> versions? I expect a crash in 1.68 (if the commit is not reverted) and 
> in 1.65.x, so if you don't experience one I'd be interested in details 
> (OS, stdlib, compiler etc.). Also: 1.64 should be fine and 1.65 should 
> not leak, but crash. 1.66/1.67 have the leak.

Here's what I did.  I looked at the serialization test matrix:

https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/serialization.html

The interesting test is test_dll_exported.  I compared this table 
against the config.info:

https://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/config.html

And I also looked at the test command line.

test results to see if I could find a commonality between the test 
failures and the configuration being tested.  I found that:

a) Test failed only on linux platforms.  But the test doesn't fail on 
all linux platforms.
b) Test never fails on windows platforms.
c) tests would fail with both clang and gcc compilers
d) Test failure seems pretty reliable.  Exception: the one test which 
passes uses gcc 7.3
e) I can't discern what the build switch settings are from the python 
command line.  That is I would like to know if it was built with 
link=shared/static and runtime-link=shared/static.  I believe that this 
information would be significant.
f) a couple of ARM tests pass - one fails.

Much has been made of a memory leak.  The current version 1.68 on 
develop and master branches removed the dynamic allocation in the 
singleton module.  So if there is a memory leak it would be more subtle 
than first meets the eye.  I believe this memory leak was introduced in 
efforts to make this test pass for 1.67 (or maybe 1.66 I don't remember).

I believe the correct way to approach this is to analyze your new test 
and also test_dll_export in light of Gavin Lambert's comments above.  If 
this works out, I would then add this information to the serialization 
library documentation.

Unfortunately, I'm bogged down in other stuff so I can't address it 
instantaneously, but it I do consider it important to investigate further.

Robert Ramey

> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>