Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
John Maddock skrev:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I think it would be ok to allow both options, but probably the default should equal the Microsoft default with an easy way to opt-out of the madness!
Agree 100%, our default should equal the compiler default, otherwise it'll catch too many folks out.
But AFAIK, even the prebuilt binaries that you get from Boost Consulting are built with _SECURE_SCL=0.
Really ??? I hadn't realised that, that's not good IMO, given that the define changes the ABI away from the compilers default.
One thing I hope we can all agree on: this should be a toolset feature, and it should change the library-name-mangling so that auto_link.hpp can select the correct binary (it doesn't at present, but just let me know what the correct name-mangling is and I'll fix that).
what about adding "-nsl" (no secure library) in the name?
It would be nice to establish a clear policy that allows us, given a compiler option -do-random-nonsense to determine: - whether there should be Boost.Build feature for that option - what values of that options should be built by default - should the value of that option be included in the library name There's infinitely many options, and infinitely many of them change ABI, so I don't know offhand how to decide on these questions. Anybody can suggest anything? - Volodya