[Boost-users] Boost serialization w/gcc 3.2.3 on CentOS 4.4?

From: matthew.garman_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-04-26 15:11:26

We've got an in-house infrastructure that uses the
boost::serialization library (from boost 1.33).  Thus far, all our
development has been done using gcc 3.4.5 and 3.4.6 on CentOS 4.3
and 4.4 (respectively).  (Note that CentOS is practically the same
as Red Hat Enterprise Linux.)

Now we are forced to integrate with a 3rd party proprietary library
that was built with gcc 3.2.  So I installed the gcc32 package:

% gcc32 --version
gcc32 (GCC) 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-47.3)
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

If I build my program with gcc 3.2 and link against boost built with
gcc 3.4, my program segfaults as soon as the first
boot::serialization method is called.

So I tried to rebuild boost using gcc 3.2.  I did this by running
the configure script, then modifying the "BJAM_CONFIG" variable of
the top-level Makefile:

BJAM_CONFIG= -sPYTHON_ROOT=/usr -sPYTHON_VERSION=2.3 \
    -sGXX=g++32 -sGCC=gcc32

Then I ran make.  First thing I noticed is that there were a *lot*
of warnings, although the library did build.  Same thing when
building my own program: lots of warnings surrounding the boost
stuff, but it does build.  Also, when linking, I get this warning:

/usr/bin/ld: warning: libstdc++.so.6, needed by
/usr/local/lib/libboost_serialization-gcc.so, may conflict with
libstdc++.so.5

Unfortunately, the program still crashes when it gets to the
boost::serialization stuff.

I looked at the Boost compatibility matrix, and as far as I can
tell, gcc 3.2 is supported (though I definitely could have misread
something!).  So my hunch is that I've got a problem with my build
process... but I'm not sure where.

I know I've left out some details; please let me know what other
info I need to provide.  Suggestions or general "things to try" are
welcome as well!

Thanks,
Matt