Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.Serialization] Serializing "abstract" classes

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Boost.Serialization] Serializing "abstract" classes
From: Júlio Hoffimann (julio.hoffimann_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-05 13:43:06

Thank you for reply Robert,

Yes, i've compiled the code using GCC 4.5. Now i see the warning you
mentioned:

warning:40: type qualifiers ignored on function return type

I've used BOOST_SERIALIZATION_ASSUME_ABSTRACT because the library
documentation is a little confusing with the "abstract class" term. But note
that even commenting out the macro, the problem remains. What is the warning
about on line 40? I'm missing something trivial? :-)

I've also tried to misplace the BOOST_EXPORT_CLASS macro among the source
lines, but without success. Do you have any hint in what is happening?

Appreciate your help,
Júlio.

2011/8/5 Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>

> **
> Júlio Hoffimann wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > I'm using Boost 1.45...
> >
> >
> > I've read Boost.Serialization docs so many times and can't understand
> > why my testcase is not working as expected. According to the
> > following three links, we need to address serialization of derived
> > classes with "abstract" base class by using boost macros:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/serialization/doc/traits.html#export
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/serialization/doc/special.html#export
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/serialization/doc/traits.html#abstract
> >
> >
> > I did my testcase ( http://codepad.org/6ETp1Ac0 ) completely based on
> > the demo:
> > http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/serialization/example/demo.cpp
>
> Have you tried to build adn run the demo as it is?  Does it work?
>
> Robert Ramey
>
> >
> >
> > Compiling and running shows that the derived class archive contains
> > just the base class data members. What is happening? How can i solve
> > this problem?
>
> One obvious problem is that the base class is not abstract.  To be
> abstract,
> a base class must have atleast one virtual function in the form
>
> virtual my_function() = 0;
>
> The ASSUME_ABSTRACT macro doesn't mark it abstract to the
> compiler - it marks it abstract to the boost type-traites system.
> I know it's quirky and unclear - but I see no way to make it bullet proof.
>
> I'm sort of surprised/disappointed that this doesn't give a compile time
> warning.  What compiler do you use?
>
> Robert Ramey
>
>
> >
> >
> > I really appreciate any help,
> > Júlio.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>