Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [boost.build] should we not define_SECURE_SCL=0 by default for all msvc toolsets
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-20 10:07:15
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> It would be nice to establish a clear policy that allows us, given a
>> compiler option -do-random-nonsense to determine:
>> - whether there should be Boost.Build feature for that option
How about: "new features are randomly added based upon demand".
>> - what values of that options should be built by default
IMO always the same as the compiler uses by default. Of course we might run
into issues if IDE's and command line compilers do different things by
default, but we'll cross that bridge when we find it.
>> - should the value of that option be included in the library name
Yes, if it's commonly used and changes/breaks the compilers ABI.
But of course given than N options give us 2^N library variants, we'll have
to be careful how many of these options we add/support.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk