On 10/16/18 8:15 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
But Robert insists that #111 "does not show anything at all. It's ill conceived." True He does not acknowledge that Boost.Serialization makes the application crash False and does not bring any argument why it would be "ill conceived". False I do not understand this. It obviously crashes. This is a fact easily reproducible by anyone on linux.
If "It" refers to the test_dll_exported on clang - True else False If the test misuses C++
(UB, ...) or the library, then where and how? If not,
If the test refers to your recent test - you test doesn't test anything. If the test refers to the serialization library test_export_dll on clang (with which version of standard library - who knows?) there is a problem. That is why I made such a test after all. So True why is it seen as
"ill conceived"?
It's based on a mis-understanding of how the serialization uses the singleton and of how the singleton works.
My version of the patch captures the essence of the PR while retaining the original intent of the code.
This is simply wrong.
False If it would #110 and #111 would pass. False It fails to
fix the `is_destroyed` function or the core problem with destruction order
I see no evidence of this.
It's much simpler and alters many less files.
Verifiably true by inspection.
My fix alters 1 file to fix `is_destroyed` and 4 more to remove a single line with an assertion which doesn't hold as shown in #111. Most of the changes are added reverts to an earlier, working version and comments on why and how stuff works, so it doesn't get accidentally broken by optimization/reduction efforts as happened in 1.65
I have no idea why I am being criticized for making this patch.
Because a) it combines unrelated changes,
If a) refers to my patch -> Verifiably True by inspection hiding the fix and b) pushing
it w/o review by the original patch author who might have reasonable arguments why it isn't enough or "the essence of the PR". I learned it is your right to do that.
For good reason. But then again it is my right to to tell you
that your claim is wrong.
True. As I as the author of the patch might
understand the patch better, it is quite possible, that I'm right, isn't it?
It's possible - but after having considered that possibility, I've concluded that it's False Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost