Hi,

I am trying to serialize a multi-indexed container defined as below ( I am using boost 1.33.1 ):

_______________________________________________________________________________

/**

Shorter id of namespaces.

*/

namespace bmi = boost::multi_index;

/**

Tags for accessing several indices defined below

*/

struct name_tag {};

class

  string_node

{

public:

   std::string   m_name;

  friend class boost::serialization::access;

  void

    serialize      ( boost::archive::polymorphic_iarchive & ar, const unsigned int file_version);

  void

    serialize      ( boost::archive::polymorphic_oarchive & ar, const unsigned int file_version);

};

/**

Container of children of a node in the string tree

*/

typedef boost::multi_index_container<

string_node*,

bmi::indexed_by<

bmi::sequenced<>,           // sequenced type

bmi::ordered_non_unique<

bmi::tag<name_tag>,  BOOST_MULTI_INDEX_MEMBER( string_node, const std::string, m_name)> > >

node_set;

_______________________________________________________________________________

While serializing this container containing ===> several nodes with the same key <===,

I get an access violation exception somewhere deep in the multi_index library.

Tracing a little bit back the stack I noticed something unusual in

boost_1_33_1\install\include\boost\multi_index\detail\duplicates_iterator.hpp

in the duplicates_iterator::sync() member function (around line 80):

_______________________________________________________________________________

  void sync()

  {

    if(pred(begin_chunk->value,node->value))advance();

  }

_______________________________________________________________________________

This function seems to advance the iterator within a chunk of equal keys.

However, the if clause does not consider the case where node == end. These are exactly the

circumstances under which my program crashes in 'pred(begin_chunk...)'.

Changing the if condition into

_______________________________________________________________________________

  void sync()

  {

    if( (node != end) && pred(begin_chunk->value,node->value))

      advance();

  }

_______________________________________________________________________________

seems to fix the problem. However, I am not familiar with the overall implementation and

therefore I cannot tell whether this is indeed the cause or whether there are side-effects

to my patch.

Has anyone else experienced a situation similar to this one? Is there something wrong with

 my container definition, to begin with?

I really appreciate any feedback.

Thanks,

Bogdan