Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-04 13:08:27

Beman Dawes:

> Since we probably want to apply a fix that works with current compilers
> in the field, we probably want to do something like this:
> #if defined(BOOST_INTEL) && defined(BOOST_DINKUMWARE_STDLIB)
> # define _SECURE_SCL 0
> #endif
> This should be applied to test programs, not to headers files. If it
> were applied to header files (or added to the bjam toolset for Intel),
> it would affect user code. Some users might actually want the Microsoft
> mandated checking for their own code.
> Comments?

I don't agree. In principle, the tests should be a faithful representation
of reality; if a certain snippet of user code fails, so should the
corresponding test.

We can declare that we only support _SECURE_SCL=0, and run the tests with
that defined, but we should *not* hack the tests to pass under _SECURE_SCL=1
with the full knowledge that user code will fail under the same conditions.

(Our other option is to patch the libraries for EDG == 3 && _SECURE_SCL.)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at