From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-15 14:36:56
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe
>> b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when
>> the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
> I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming
> in that mode, I guess it's not quite non-conforming enough to cause
> problems for most people, although I agree that the performance
> issue is a very real one. The suggestion to provide a Boost.Build
> option for this sounds like the best approach though? Anyone want
> to provide a patch?
What interface would you consider appropriate? Right now
bjam ... define=_SECURE_SCL=0 ...
works with BBv2. Do you want some kind of more descriptive syntax?
?? That wouldn't be appropriate if _SECURE_SCL=0 has effects other
than turning off iterator checking.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk