Subject: Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] what to do about msvc "deprecation" and "unsafe" warnings
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 05:28:30
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On
> Robert Ramey
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:56 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] [new Warnings policy] what to do about msvc "deprecation" and
> I've implemented the suggestions in "new warnings policy". It probably DID
> catch a few bugs which have probably been in there for years. It wasn't as
> bad as I thought - mostly tedium and a few hours of testing. But now I have
> a couple of questions:
> a) I added
> <toolset>gcc:<warnings>all # ?
> <toolset>msvc:<warnings>all # == /W4
> To my jamfile.
> With MSVC 9.0 I now get a blizzard of "deprecation" and "unsafe" warnings.
> If the policy is updated to address this, I will implement the
> Robert Ramey
> I'm wondering if I should replace the above with something which maximizes
> the warning level for all compiles. Perhaps just
> <warnings>all #?
Would adding the MSVC *_SECURE_* defines to NOT deprecate the 'insecure' version
# The define of macros below prevent warnings about the checked versions
of SCL and CRT libraries.
# Most Boost code does not need these versions (as they are markedly
# Alternatively, you can just suppress the warnings (probably not the
<toolset>msvc:<cxxflags>/wd4996 # 'putenv': The POSIX name for this item
is deprecated. (and other similar deprecations).
As suggested in
This may also deal with the "unsafe"?
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]