From: Mat Marcus (mat-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-03 15:39:48
2008/9/3 Jurko Gospodnetiæ <jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden]>:
> Hi Mat.
>> Johannes is referring to the patch that I proposed earlier this year.
>> For the rationale for the (admittedly snarky) name and the need for
>> link-incompatibility see:
> Thank you for the links.
> As for the name - I prefer the ones I suggested so far as they are more
> 'neutral' (less spirited/snarky/offensive/...).
Agreed, providing that we stick with defaults settings of"off" (as you
and I did, but not MS).
> And the links do not answer my original link-incompatibility question:
>>> * Are we sure we want the <msvc-security-warnings> feature (or
>>> <crt-security-theater> as you called it) to be marked as
>>> Doesn't this just enable or disable compiler/linker warnings and does not
>>> affect the built executable/object code/library?
> I know that the _SCL_SECURE setting (a.k.a. <msvc-checked-iterators> or
> <stl-security-theater> the the original post) may cause link
> My question was related to the _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS &
> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE settins (a.k.a. <msvc-security-warnings> or
> <crt-security-theater> in the original post) which I do not believe affects
> link incompatibility in any way but whose feature was declared as
> link-incompatible in the original post.
> Best regards,
> Jurko Gospodnetiæ
Sorry, mis-read your question. It seems reasonable to guess that
link-incompatibility/name mangling would not be required in the case
of the warning flag. Thanks for picking up the ball on this one.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk