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

From: Tanguy Fautre (tanguy.fautre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 05:52:14

Reece Dunn wrote:
> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> IIRC, using _SECURE_SCL means that VC8 will replace some calls to
> strcpy, et. al. with the MS str***_s equivalents. There may be other
> changes as well.

I think you're confusing with other defines such as 
_CRT_SECURE_CPP_OVERLOAD_STANDARD_NAMES.

 From MSDN:

"_SECURE_SCL

If defined as 1, unsafe iterator use causes a runtime error. If defined 
as 0, checked iterators are disabled. The exact behavior of the runtime 
error depends on the value of _SECURE_SCL_THROWS. The default value for 
_SECURE_SCL is 1, meaning checked iterators are enabled by default."

more info:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-US/library/y9ww7c1a.aspx (all about 
checked iterators)

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8ef0s5kh.aspx (security 
enhancements in the CRT)

Tanguy