Serializing collections with non-default constructible data #2805
Conversation
| value_type& ref = reinterpret_cast<value_type&>(storage); | ||
| load_construct_data(ar, &ref, 0); | ||
| ar >> ref; | ||
| collection.push_back(ref); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't this be
collection.push_back(std::move(ref));
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice catch, thanks!
| sizeof(value_type), alignof(value_type)>; | ||
|
|
||
| collection.clear(); | ||
| while (size-- > 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be possible to call collection.reserve(size); here (at least for vector and deque etc.)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good note, thanks!
| template <class Archive, class T> | ||
| void save_construct_data(Archive&, T*, unsigned) | ||
| { | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add a HPX_ASSERT(false); if this function is supposed to never be called.
| template <class Archive, class T> | ||
| void load_construct_data(Archive&, T* t, unsigned) | ||
| { | ||
| ::new (t) T; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, please add HPX_ASSERT(false);
|
@krivenko could you please verify whether this is solving your issue? |
|
@AntonBikineev will you have time to look into @krivenko's problems or do you want me to do that? |
|
@hkaiser, yeah, I’m looking into this…
|
AntonBikineev
force-pushed
the
nondefault_ctor_ser
branch
from
2e90fd5
to
bd92900
Compare
|
@krivenko please let us know if you're ok with these changes. |
|
@hkaiser I don't have permissions to merge this PR, could you do this please (if you feel it's ready)? |
|
@AntonBikineev I will do that. Let's get some of the other, older PRs in first. |
|
@AntonBikineev Anton, sorry for getting back to this, but why did you use a different mechanism to construct an instance of non-default-constructable types here than we've been using for serializing single instances of such types? |
|
@hkaiser, hm..., it seems like I just looked at what Boost.Serializaiton does. Having the same mechanism for deserializing collections and single instances would be definitely better.
… On Aug 18, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Hartmut Kaiser ***@***.***> wrote:
@AntonBikineev <https://github.com/antonbikineev> Anton, sorry for getting back to this, but why did you use a different mechanism to construct an instance of non-default-constructable types here than we've been using for serializing single instances of such types?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2805 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFrQvm9w0utys7rM9yziIs2n_nC0PqQiks5sZZn3gaJpZM4OwCG1>.
|
|
@AntonBikineev see #2849 for how I propose to unify things. Please have a look. |
This fixes #2795