Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and (Microsoft's) _SECURE_SCL
From: Martin B. (0xCDCDCDCD_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-04 05:13:43
On 03.11.2010 19:01, John Maddock wrote:
>> Long story short of this post: Are there any plans (left) to add
>> additional name mangling to the boost libs on Windows to address the
>> problem of mismatched _SECURE_SCL setting?
> Long story short: I'm happy to add this to the auto-linking header if we
> all agree on a mangling scheme - how about "idl#" where # is the IDL level?
> However, there really isn't much point in this unless we also add this
> to Boost.Build: since it seems that now that this has been rationalized
> in VC10 I guess "idl=0/1/2" would work well? Unless it's possible to
> have HID=1 SCL=0 as an option in any VC versions?
Given your own comment in the other post: (03.11.2010 19:03, John Maddock)
>> Yes. VC10's linker deterministically detects IDL mismatch and emits
>> hard errors, naming the offending object files.
> Cool, I'll investigate adding support for that to our auto-linking
and Stephan's comment: (03.11.2010 18:02, Stephan T. Lavavej)
>> In Visual Studio 2010, the situation is reversed,
>> as Microsoft decided
>> to now default to _SECURE_SCL=0. That means the people
>> who change it to 1 in their release build
>> for additional security will be bitten by the problem.
> I can confidently predict that almost nobody will do that.
Adding the name mangling may not be necessary for VS2010: I agree that
very few people will actually enable _SECURE_SCL in release mode and if
#pragma detect_mismatch works with the boost autolink machinery, then
we'll get linker errors anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk