Reputation: 463
I have the following:
class Message
{
public:
bool process()
{
return doProcess();
}
protected:
virtual bool doProcess() = 0;
};
class Hello : public Message
{
protected:
bool doProcess()
{
return false;
}
};
typedef typename boost::mpl::map< boost::mpl::pair< boost::mpl::int_< 0 >, Hello > > map;
struct Generator
{
typedef void result_type;
template< typename t_type >
void operator()(std::vector< boost::shared_ptr< Message > >& processors,
t_type p_element)
{
typedef typename boost::mpl::at< map, t_type >::type c_instanceType
boost::shared_ptr< Message > temp(reinterpret_cast< Message* >(new c_instanceType));
p_processors[p_element] = temp;
}
};
This is then invoke like so:
class MessageProcessor
{
public:
MessageProcessor() :
m_processors(12)
{
// eventually there will be 12 different messages so I will add
// them to the mpl map and adjust the range
boost::mpl::for_each< boost::mpl::range_c< boost::uint8_t, 0, 1 > >
(
boost::bind(Generator(), boost::ref(m_processors), _1)
}
private:
std::vector< boost::shared_ptr< Message > > m_processors;
};
This code compiles cleanly; however, when the function is later invoked like so:
m_processors[0]->process();
A segmenation fault occurs on the line in the process function that returns do process. I am working in gcc 4.8 with boost version 1.55. Also note this isn't the entire code. When walking through with the debugger I see that the vptr appears to be null when invoking the doProcess, so the child class doesn't seem to exist. Any ideas on how to fix this?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 66
Reputation: 463
So the issue appears to be that the type is not actually found when doing at<> and something else is being returned instead of the Hello type. It looks like the type that is passed in by boost::for_each
is of type, boost::mpl::integral_c<boost::uint8_t, 0>
which doesn't exist in the mpl map since I am storing boost::mpl::int_<0>
as the key. Changing the key type in the map to boost::mpl::integeral_c< boost::uint8_t, 0 >
does not segfault and performs as expected.
Upvotes: 1