Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 by default for all msvc toolsets
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-20 10:17:38
John Maddock skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>> I think it would be ok to allow both options, but probably the
>>>> default should equal the Microsoft default with an easy way to
>>>> opt-out of the madness!
> Agree 100%, our default should equal the compiler default, otherwise
> it'll catch too many folks out.
>>> But AFAIK, even the prebuilt binaries that you get from Boost
>>> Consulting are built with _SECURE_SCL=0.
> Really ??? I hadn't realised that, that's not good IMO, given that the
> define changes the ABI away from the compilers default.
> One thing I hope we can all agree on: this should be a toolset feature,
> and it should change the library-name-mangling so that auto_link.hpp can
> select the correct binary (it doesn't at present, but just let me know
> what the correct name-mangling is and I'll fix that).
what about adding "-nsl" (no secure library) in the name?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk