Boost logo

Boost :

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
header.

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.

cheers,
Martin


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk