On 8/19/14 8:40 PM, aragonsr wrote:
It's on load.
I'm just testing with a single derived class.
My base class is an abstract polymorphic base class. So I didn't use "base_object
(this)" in the derived class. Is this correct? There's nothing in the base class to serialize. it sounds like you're telling me, even if it's abstract, I should go ahead and use "base_object (this)"? I'll give that a shot.. I guess.. I meant examples in the documentation. Specifically: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_56_0/libs/serialization/doc/serialization.ht... http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_56_0/libs/serialization/doc/serialization.ht...
I'm using polymorphic archives throughout the application in all the object's I'm trying to serialize / deserialize. And I'm explicitly instantiating the templates like the documentation says.
"But most linkers strip out code which is known to be called." That doesn't make sense. Do you mean "which is NOT called"?
I didn't know about the dll static lib thing. Never thought about it. This gives me something to chew on for a while. Thanks!
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Serialization-1-56-0-unregistered-class-e... Sent from the Boost - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
As it turns out, it appears that you were correct when you stated that mixing static and dynamic libs is a bad idea. I had no idea. After running several different tests, I was able to get it to work. I put the serialization code inside the same dll that the serialization operation was initiated from and that worked. I then put the serialization code inside of a different dll and initiated the serialization from a separate dll. This also worked. I also tested using the manual void_register call and implementing a dummy serialize method in the base class, both worked when I took the static lib out of the equation. Thanks a ton!