From: Sean Huang (huangsean_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-05 12:57:26
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.35.0] Intel compiler - does anyone care?
> That seems pretty messy.
> Let's go with the <define>_SECURE_SCL=0 approach, at least for now.
> change the toolset, or get someone else to do it if I can't figure out
I have serious concerns on this approach. Intel C++ is NOT a standalone
product and has to be used together with MSVC. If _SECURE_SCL is ONLY
specified with code compiled with Intel, it will almost for sure result in
crashes when lined with code compiled without _SECURE_SECL=0 defined (we had
this painful experience). Due to various reasons (compiler stability,
compiler time, and inability to compile MFC/ATL etc.), we only use Intel to
compile our most performance critical code and use MSVC for the rest of the
code. I suspect this usage is pretty common. We also patched autolink to
always link to MSVC compiled boost libraries. My opinion is to either patch
the code (what we did) or leave it alone and let user deal with it. I do not
think it is such a bad idea running regression intel tests with _SECURE_SCL
defined. The important thing is that the macro needs to be defined
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk