Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [boost.build] should we not define _SECURE_SCL=0 by default for all msvc toolsets
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-20 10:52:35
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> 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?
It would be nice to establish a clear policy that allows us, given a compiler
option -do-random-nonsense to determine:
- whether there should be Boost.Build feature for that option
- what values of that options should be built by default
- should the value of that option be included in the library name
There's infinitely many options, and infinitely many of them change ABI,
so I don't know offhand how to decide on these questions. Anybody can
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk