Re: [boost] [1.35] System: error_code.cpp #defines macros without checking if already defined

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-06 05:16:38

Beman Dawes wrote:
> Leaving aside the _SECURE_SCL 0 question, I think we need a boost
> header
> file that wraps up the needed code. This header should not be included
> in Boost headers, since doing so gets in user's way. But it would be
> useful in library sources like error_code.cpp and test programs.
>
> Building on Hartmut's suggestion, the header might look like this:
>
> //
> // silence 'secure' and 'deprecate' warnings
> //
> #if (_MSC_VER >= 1400) && !defined(BOOST_ENABLE_DEPRECATE_WARNINGS)
> #  ifndef _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> #    define _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> #  endif
> #  ifndef _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> #    define _SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> #  endif
> #endif
>
> #if (_MSC_VER >= 1400) && !defined(BOOST_ENABLE_SECURE_WARNINGS)
> #  ifndef _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
> #    define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
> #  endif
> #  ifndef _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
> #    define _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
> #  endif
> #endif
>
> Perhaps name it <boost/config/silence_misfeatures.hpp> or similar. I
> don't want a Microsoft specific name since it might be useful later
> for
> other compiler misfeatures.
>
> I'd add a comment explaining not to use it in user-visible code like
> boost/ headers.

Unfortunately - and as already noted by Peter Dimov - defining these macros 
has an impact on the ABI comparibity of the code, so I don't believe we can 
do that :-(

We might be able to use #pragma's to just turn the warnings unconditionally 
off though - so in effect the header would have the same effect.

Let me experiment with that, John.