"John Maddock" <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
a. I don't think you're actually agreeing with me. Maybe s/carefully/seriously/?
b. Normally our default is not the same as the compiler's default when the compiler's default is nonconformant, as it is in this case.
I missed (well forgot actually) that the compiler was non-comforming in that mode, I guess it's not quite non-conforming enough to cause problems for most people, although I agree that the performance issue is a very real one. The suggestion to provide a Boost.Build option for this sounds like the best approach though? Anyone want to provide a patch?
What interface would you consider appropriate? Right now bjam ... define=_SECURE_SCL=0 ... works with BBv2. Do you want some kind of more descriptive syntax? bjam checked_iterators=no ?? That wouldn't be appropriate if _SECURE_SCL=0 has effects other than turning off iterator checking. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com