Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-16 15:21:41
On 10/16/18 8:11 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 7:23 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> > https://github.com/boostorg/serialization/pull/111/files
>> > which does indeed crash
>> > https://travis-ci.org/boostorg/serialization/jobs/441654483#L2546
>> > That's easy enough to follow and does show a legitimate problem, in
>> my > opinion, although Robert refuses to acknowledge it for some reason.
>> The test does not show anything at all. It's ill conceived.
> What is ill-conceived about it? It's a minimal example of two shared
> libraries each using Serialization. As Alexander says, it's a simplified
> version of a crash they had in one of their projects.
First of all, the test changes every time I look at it. It's hard to
On the last version I looked at - since no there is not
BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT(class name) invoked, there are no indexed entries in
the extended type info tables so get_key() should return null under any
circumstances. It tests nothing. Worse, it betrays the fact that the
author of the test, and anyone who doesn't see a problem with it, have
read neither the document nor the source code. Rather than asking
"What's ill conceived about it" better to ask - "What is this supposed
to be testing?"
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk