-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Beman Dawes Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:17 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [1.35.0] Intel compiler - does anyone care?
That seems pretty messy.
Let's go with the <define>_SECURE_SCL=0 approach, at least for now. I'll change the toolset, or get someone else to do it if I can't figure out how.
I have serious concerns on this approach. Intel C++ is NOT a standalone product and has to be used together with MSVC. If _SECURE_SCL is ONLY specified with code compiled with Intel, it will almost for sure result in crashes when lined with code compiled without _SECURE_SECL=0 defined (we had this painful experience). Due to various reasons (compiler stability, compiler time, and inability to compile MFC/ATL etc.), we only use Intel to compile our most performance critical code and use MSVC for the rest of the code. I suspect this usage is pretty common. We also patched autolink to always link to MSVC compiled boost libraries. My opinion is to either patch the code (what we did) or leave it alone and let user deal with it. I do not think it is such a bad idea running regression intel tests with _SECURE_SCL defined. The important thing is that the macro needs to be defined consistently. Regards, Sean