From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-16 07:35:59
David Abrahams wrote:
>> 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 ...
Oh, if it's that easy then I'm happy and I'll just shut up :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk