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: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 19:14:08

on Wed Sep 03 2008, Michael Marcin <mike.marcin-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Jurko Gospodnetić 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>.

I was thinking the same.  GCC has them, MSVC has them, STLPort has them,
probably others have them.

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

I guess it depends on whether you think it's more astonishing to have
any chance of high performance absolutely slaughtered even in MSVC
release builds, and to have different defaults for the checked-iterator
setting on different platforms, or more astonishing for the default to
be different from what the toolset gives you out-of-the-box.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com