Re: [boost] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 bydefault for all msvc toolsets

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 bydefault for all msvc toolsets
From: raindog_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-12-20 01:34:10

The checks are however a huge performance hit that people tend to be caught by surprise with.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Emil Dotchevski" <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]>

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:58:53 
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [boost] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 by
        default for all msvc toolsets


On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:36 AM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have to agree with this.  Another boost configuration that disables
> all that Microsoft crap that slows down code for no good reason would
> be wonderful.  I personally build Boost myself with this command (in a
> batch file):
>
> ..\bjam --build-type=complete --toolset=msvc-8.0 --without-mpi
> --prefix=R:/SDKs/boost/built_head --build-dir=R:/SDKs/boost/build_head
> define=_CRT_NONSTDC_NO_DEPRECATE define=_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> define=_SECURE_SCL=0 define=_SCL_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE
> define=_HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING=0 install>..\build-HEAD.log

I'm not against a separate configuration that disables these things
but I'm happy with the default release the way it is; I find the STL
checks in the Microsoft implementation quite helpful. I've found that
usually I don't have any reasons to disable them.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost