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 11:26:30
John Maddock wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> 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
> How about: "new features are randomly added based upon demand".
This is probably ok.
>>> - what values of that options should be built by default
> IMO always the same as the compiler uses by default.
Well, but -- should we only build with the default value in the compiler?
Or with all possible values?
>>> - should the value of that option be included in the library name
> Yes, if it's commonly used and changes/breaks the compilers ABI.
So, we need a definition of "commonly"? There should be a line beyond which
the user is supposed to explicitly build extra variant, and deal with the
> But of course given than N options give us 2^N library variants, we'll have
> to be careful how many of these options we add/support.
Yes, this is the primary concern.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk