Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] link error and exception on get_key

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] link error and exception on get_key
From: Daniel Roberts (impulsionaudio_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-15 18:28:58

Thanks for the response. Yes, I am using the no rtti option. I downloaded
test_no_rtti.cpp and got it to work as-is. I then made the following
changes:

1) Move polymorphic_base's definition into its own header file.
2) Move polymorphic_derived1's definition into its own header file.
3) Move the definition of polymorphic_derived1::get_key() into an
implementation file.

Making these changes causes the assertion failure. I am using boost v1.36.0
and  Visual Studio 2008 9.0.30729.1 SP

Thanks,
Daniel Roberts

I presume you're using the "no rtti" option? get_key used only for those
systems which
use which depend on extended_type_info_no_rtti to handle extended_type_info
functionality.

with which compiler?, which version of boost?
 "Daniel Roberts" <impulsionaudio_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:
14125aaf0901142057s6ba59d08tc98a6990a5f78bca_at_mail.gmail.com...
 I have a derived class that exports its type and overrides get_key for
serialization through a base class pointer. If I move the definition of the
overridden get_key function out of the header into a cpp file, an assertion
fails on line 49 of extended_type_info.cpp.

 Take a look at the example "test_no_rtti".  the class polymorphic_derived
has a get_key
 declaration - but the get_key definition is not inline.  This would seem
identical your case.

 You might want to make a small variation of test_no_rtti such that the
definition of
 polymorphic_derived1::get_key defintion is moved to a separate source and
verify that
 it builds and runs correctly.

 If I define any other functions in the cpp file, I get a linker error
saying that the get_key symbol is already defined. It looks to me that any
serializable derived class must be completely defined in the header file. Is
this correct?

 If so, why does such a limitation exist?

 I don't think this limitation exists

 Thank you

 Robert Ramey