From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-08 04:03:59
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Yuval Ronen wrote:
>>Alexander Ivanov wrote:
>>>defining symbol _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE should suppress most of these
>>Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I can define this in *my* project
>>files. I can't do it in *Boost* project files. My point is that the
>>Boost build system should define it for compiling Boost. I can handle my
>>compilations, I'd like to see Boost handle its own compilation... No
>>flames intended, of course, and I sincerely apologize if it looks like it...
> Given that most of boost code is in headers, and thus is processed with
> your own compilation, I don't think the distinction between 'theirs' and
> 'yours' is as clear as you make it sound.
I think the distinction in this context is very clear. Whatever is done
with 'bjam' to compile the non-header-only parts of Boost is 'theirs'.
All the rest is 'mine'.
> In fact, one solution that has been discussed here before was to wrap all
> boost code with pragma guards to disable the warning before boost code
> is parsed, and re-enables them when the parser gets back to your code.
> That, however, is quite intrusive and requires a lot of work.
This is a whole new ball game. Wrapping all Boost code in pragma guard
has its advantages and disadvantages. I won't argue here in favour or
against it. All I'm saying that invoking bjam to compile Boost itself,
shouldn't emit any warnings. This is something that I can't imagine
anyone saying is wrong.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk