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

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.
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> 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.

--Beman