Paul Baxter wrote:
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-200... ) 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?
I guess that's OK. The only people who would be inconvenienced are those who *want* the _SECURE_SCL checks. --Beman