From: Paul Baxter (pauljbaxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-04 13:52:02
>> This should be applied to test programs, not to headers files. If it
>> were applied to header files (or added to the bjam toolset for Intel),
>> it would affect user code. Some users might actually want the Microsoft
>> mandated checking for their own code.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I don't agree. In principle, the tests should be a faithful representation
> of reality; if a certain snippet of user code fails, so should the
> corresponding test.
>
> We can declare that we only support _SECURE_SCL=0, and run the tests with
> that defined, but we should *not* hack the tests to pass under
> _SECURE_SCL=1
> with the full knowledge that user code will fail under the same
> conditions.
Previous suggestions (
http://garrys-brain.blogspot.com/2006/10/boost-library-and-visual-studio-2005.html )
have included adding this definition (and others) as part of the bjam
compiler options for intel's compiler. If a user wants to build his program
with different compiler options they'd need to look at the ramifications.
What's wrong with having that as the recommended compiler options?
Paul