Re: [Boost-users] [mpi] many undefined references to serialize<boost::mpi::detail::mpi_datatype_oarchive>

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [mpi] many undefined references to serialize<boost::mpi::detail::mpi_datatype_oarchive>
From: Oswin Krause (Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-09-11 13:11:00

Hi,

Is there a reason you ar doing it this way?
Because your question now boils down to: "Why does it hurt, when I turn 
automatic template generation off?".

As an user of an serializable class, I would never expect that my 
choice of archive would impact whether my code compiles or not. 
Especially since the interface states that i can (through template<class 
Archive>). Instead I would assume that i could safely add my own 
archives without checking weird macros in theird party libraries.

Greetings,
Oswin

because it cna assume it to be there.
On 2012-09-11 18:22, Brian Budge wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Riccardo Murri
> <riccardo.murri_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Brian Budge 
>> <brian.budge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I've got a class hierarchy that can already be serialized into text 
>>> or
>>> binary archives.  I'm explicitly instantiating the template 
>>> functions
>>> for serialize and/or load/save.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to add the capability to have boost mpi perform the
>>> serialization through send/recv/broadcast.
>>
>> If your class has serialization support, that's enough.  You should
>> not provide specialization for mpi::detail classes.
>>
>> (Of course, YMMV - since you didn't provide any code, my comment 
>> above
>> could be completely off ...)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Riccardo
>
> Thanks for the replies.  Here are the macros I made to perform the
> explicit instantiation:
>
> #define INSTANTIATE_FUNCTION_FOR_INPUT_ARCHIVES(FUNC)                 
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::archive::binary_iarchive &archive,          
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version);                       
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::mpi::packed_iarchive &archive,              
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version);                       
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::archive::text_iarchive &archive,            
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version)
>
> #define INSTANTIATE_FUNCTION_FOR_OUTPUT_ARCHIVES(FUNC)                
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::archive::binary_oarchive &archive,          
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version);                       
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::mpi::packed_oarchive &archive,              
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version);                       
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::mpi::detail::mpi_datatype_oarchive 
> &archive,     \
>                    const unsigned int version);                       
>     \
> template void FUNC(boost::archive::text_oarchive &archive,            
>     \
>                    const unsigned int version)
>
> #define MAKE_SERIALIZE_FUNCTIONS(CLASS)                               
>     \
> INSTANTIATE_FUNCTION_FOR_INPUT_ARCHIVES(CLASS::serialize);            
>     \
> INSTANTIATE_FUNCTION_FOR_OUTPUT_ARCHIVES(CLASS::serialize)
>
>
> Then, along with implementing the templatized versions of serialize
> for each class, I will call the MAKE_SERIALIZE_FUNCTIONS(myclass) in
> each myclass.cpp.
>
> So to Robert's question, I don't think this is something that could 
> be
> baked into the boost_mpi.so library, since they rely on my own
> classes.  I was just surprised to find that I needed to explicitly
> instantiate with something from detail rather than just the packed
> archives.
>
> Thanks,
>   Brian
>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boost-users mailing list
>> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users