Re: [boost] [RFC] Boost library name mangling and Microsoft's 'secure STL' feature.

Subject: Re: [boost] [RFC] Boost library name mangling and Microsoft's 'secure STL' feature.
From: Mat Marcus (mat-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 17:50:13

2008/9/3 Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]>:
> Jurko Gospodnetiæ wrote:
>>
>>  There have been requests to make Boost Build cleanly support Microsoft's
>> 'secure STL'/'checked iterators' feature.
>>
>>  Here's is one suggested implementation and how that will affect building
>> Boost libraries on Windows:
>>
>>  We add a new <msvc-checked-iterators> Boost Build feature with values
>> 'off' and 'on' and 'off' being the default.
>>
>
> It sounds OK to me except 2 issues.
>
> Are there other toolsets with checked iterator options?  I thought gcc and
> stlport had them. Perhaps the feature should be <checked-iterators>.

Microsoft offers two different features: checked iterators and
debugging iterators. Trying to map both to a single feature probably
wouldn't make sense here.

>
> The default value should obey The Principle of Least Astonishment. IMO this
> means it should be equivalent to the toolset defaults.

In this case, I believe that the principle of Don't Slow Down Inner
Loops By An Order of Magnitude should prevail. See

http://easyurl.net/high_cost
and
http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2008/05/19098.php

for the original rationale.

 - Mat