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
for the original rationale.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk