Hi, all. I'm using boost 1.33.0 and I have a problem deserializing from an archive (I'm using VC 7.1). To reproduce the problem I wrote a sample program listed below. #include <sstream> #include #include #include #include struct A { virtual ~A() {} friend class boost::serialization::access; template<class Archive> void serialize(Archive & ar, const unsigned int version) {} }; struct B: A { friend class boost::serialization::access; template<class Archive> void serialize(Archive & ar, const unsigned int version) { ar & boost::serialization::base_object<A>(*this); } }; BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT(A); BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT(B); int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { std::string str; { std::stringstream stream; boost::archive::binary_oarchive ar(stream); B b; std::vector<int> v(10); ar & b; ar & v; str = stream.rdbuf()->str(); } { std::stringstream stream; stream.rdbuf()->str(str); boost::archive::binary_iarchive ar(stream); B b; std::vector<int> v; ar & b; ar & v; // causes an assert } return 0; } During deserialization of the vector (a line with "// causes an assert"), an assert occurs in the line 266 in basic_iarchive.cpp. I don't understand the library source code well, but it looks something strange for me. As far as I understood the reset_object_address function supposed to be called with addresses of tracked objects. In my case the new_address parameter is the address of an element in the vector. But the vector elements are of a primitive type and must not be tracked. Maybe reset_object_address supposed to handle such a situation, but in the provided sample something goes wrong. If I skip the line with reset_object_address in archive_input_seq (collections_load_impl.hpp, line 91) in debugger, the sample works as expected. Also with 1.32 (in which archive_input_seq almost identical with one in 1.33 except the call to reset_object_address) the sample works as well. So I'm considering to patch the library by commenting this line. What side effects will it have? I as understood from previous posts in this forum reset_object_address was added as a bugfix to loading of containers with pointers to trackable objects. Is it safe to comment out the reset_object_address call, if I do not serialize such containers? Or maybe I'm just using the serialization library in a wrong way? Then where is the problem in my code? Thanks in advance. Sergey