Re: [boost] Bug/Incompatibility: Visual C++ 2005 checkediteratorslead to major crashes

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
>>   s/carefully/seriously/?
>>
>> 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?

     bjam checked_iterators=no

??  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