Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Yuval Ronen wrote:
Alexander Ivanov wrote:
defining symbol _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE should suppress most of these bogus warnings.
Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I can define this in *my* project files. I can't do it in *Boost* project files. My point is that the Boost build system should define it for compiling Boost. I can handle my compilations, I'd like to see Boost handle its own compilation... No flames intended, of course, and I sincerely apologize if it looks like it...
Given that most of boost code is in headers, and thus is processed with your own compilation, I don't think the distinction between 'theirs' and 'yours' is as clear as you make it sound.
I think the distinction in this context is very clear. Whatever is done with 'bjam' to compile the non-header-only parts of Boost is 'theirs'. All the rest is 'mine'.
In fact, one solution that has been discussed here before was to wrap all boost code with pragma guards to disable the warning before boost code is parsed, and re-enables them when the parser gets back to your code.
That, however, is quite intrusive and requires a lot of work.
This is a whole new ball game. Wrapping all Boost code in pragma guard has its advantages and disadvantages. I won't argue here in favour or against it. All I'm saying that invoking bjam to compile Boost itself, shouldn't emit any warnings. This is something that I can't imagine anyone saying is wrong. Regard, Yuval