When I look at the code I can explain what I had in mind. The ktmap ([export]key - type)map should have an entry for each instance of an exported type. These entries are static variables. So, when one of these static items are destroyed, its ktmap entry should be erased. The assertion is meant to trap a the case where the key isn't found in the map. Such a circumstance would indicate the map has become out of sync with the variable involved. In the absense of multi-threading should never happen. The code subsequent to the assertion presumes that at least one entry exists in the ktmap (do ...) so the assertion was there to detected an error in this presumption. So trapping on this condition inidicates that there must be an error somewhere else. I would expect that this is somewhere in the library rather than in the user's program. I could implement your suggestion, but I would much rather get to the bottom of it. dlopen(RTLD_GLOBAL|RTLD_LAZY) suggests to me that dlls are being loaded/unloaded outside of your control. The serialization library presumes that dlls are not loaded/unloaded but more than one thread at at time. Its concievable that this might be an issue. Robert Ramey Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Robert,
Would it be possible to get an answer to my initial questions, please?
Thanks! Regards Hartmut
Anything I can do about this? What does this assertion mean?
My setup: Linux 64Bit, gcc 4.2.4, serialization is used for polymorphic objects loaded from different shared libraries, shared libraries are loaded with dlopen(RTLD_GLOBAL|RTLD_LAZY).
Assertion (extended_type_info.cpp:92) occurs during program termination (after main returned), during dlclose().
If anything else isn't possible, would it be appropriate to change the related code (before the release!) from:
assert(start != end);
// remove entry in map which corresponds to this type do{ if(this == *start) x.erase(start++); else ++start; }while(start != end);
To:
assert(start != end);
// remove entry in map which corresponds to this type while(start != end) { if(this == *start) x.erase(start++); else ++start; }
Which wouldn't remove the problem, but at least avoids hanging the program if assertions are off...
Regards Hartmut
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost