Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and (Microsoft's) _SECURE_SCL
From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-11-04 15:04:10
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 10:13 +0100, Martin B. wrote:
> On 03.11.2010 19:01, John Maddock wrote:
> > 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?
> 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.
The generation of link errors is one thing: the ability to pre-build
boost for a Windows platform so that the correct libraries are
auto-linked is something different.
You won't be able to do that unless the idl# is added to the variant
name, so I reckon the change is still desirable.
-- Phil Richards, <news_at_[hidden]>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk