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: 2008-09-04 10:05:23

on Thu Sep 04 2008, "Giovanni Piero Deretta" <gpderetta-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/9/4 Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]>:
>> Jurko Gospodnetić wrote:
>>>
>>>  First some collected background information related to Microsoft's
>>> checked & debugging iterator support to get a clearer image of what we are
>>> modeling. And could someone please collect a similar summary for other
>>> compilers/libraries?
>>
>> Just a quick note: GCC's scheme works thus:
>>
>> 1) If _GLIBCXX_DEBUG is defined, the debug containers are made available.
>> 2) These containers lie in the std::__debug namespace. To actually use them,
>> the programmer needs to somehow use them explicitly. This can be done
>> through using statements or declarations, through typedefs, or namespace
>> aliases. There is no macro or compiler switch that replaces the normal
>> containers automatically.
>>
>> It is therefore an explicit choice by the programmer to use those
>> containers, for every individual usage. No switching in the build system is
>> necessary or even possible.
>
> Eh? I'm fairly sure that if the macro is defined, standard containers
> are replaced by their debug counterpart. This is all you need to do to
> enable debugging (I have caught many bugs in my code just by defining
> that macro).

That's my experience too.

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