Re: [boost] [1.35.0] Intel compiler - does anyone care?

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.)