From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-04 16:03:50
Paul Baxter wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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
>> with the full knowledge that user code will fail under the same
> Previous suggestions (
> http://garrys-brain.blogspot.com/2006/10/boost-library-and-visual-studio-2005.html )
> have included adding this definition (and others) as part of the bjam
> compiler options for intel's compiler. If a user wants to build his program
> with different compiler options they'd need to look at the ramifications.
> What's wrong with having that as the recommended compiler options?
I guess that's OK. The only people who would be inconvenienced are those
who *want* the _SECURE_SCL checks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk