Re: [boost] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 by default for all msvc toolsets

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 by default for all msvc toolsets
From: Hansi (hansipet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-19 05:07:53

I don't have any experience with bjam and so on. But I think it would be 
a good idea to provide libraries with and without _SECURE_SCL (and 
different library name). If I can do some work for that..

David Abrahams schrieb:
> on Fri Dec 05 2008, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen-AT-dezide.com> wrote:
> 
>> John Maddock skrev:
>>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>>>> I think it would be ok to allow both options, but probably the
>>>>>> default should equal the Microsoft default with an easy way to
>>>>>> opt-out of the madness!
>>> Agree 100%, our default should equal the compiler default, otherwise it'll catch too
>>> many folks out.
>>>
>>>>> But AFAIK, even the prebuilt binaries that you get from Boost
>>>>> Consulting are built with _SECURE_SCL=0.
>>> Really ???  I hadn't realised that, that's not good IMO, given that the define
>>> changes the ABI away from the compilers default.
>> Dave, since its your company that prevides the binary, can you comment on this?
> 
> Our binaries are built the standard way that bjam makes them.  We don't
> do anything special to add _SECURE_SCL=0.
>