Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers

Subject: Re: [boost] "peer reviewed" - Rights and responsibilities of maintainers
From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-16 15:33:16

First: This would have been the thing I was looking for in the MR.
> 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.
Ok, but this is defined, correct? It is not undefined behaviour or 
anything else.
Besides: And it is using standard types: "int" and "float", no classes. 
So what export is missing there?
> It tests nothing.
It tests the construction and destruction of Boost.Serialization library 
types in a specific context.||||
> 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. 
I was going for a MWE: Minimal code to show the problem. 
https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_67_0/libs/serialization/doc/tutorial.html 
does NOT show, that BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT is required. I can change the 
code to something like:
int i = 42;|
boost::archive::text_oarchive(std::cout) & i;

And
|
|float i = 42;|
boost::archive::text_oarchive(std::cout) & i;

||

||And it would still crash.||

||||

> Rather than asking "What's ill conceived about it" better to ask - 
> "What is this supposed to be testing?"
 From the description: This adds a test (from #105 
<https://github.com/boostorg/serialization/pull/105>) which uses 
singletons in shared libraries linked against static boost. This crashes 
on termination.
It simply **uses** singletons and crashes.