cpp-netlib-devel

[cpp-netlib-devel] Warning policy

[K. G. <kim...@gm...>]

Hello,

When building the tests on Windows using VC9, I get a couple of secure
SCL warnings on std::copy.

Does anybody mind if I disable those warnings via a define in the
Jamfile? I'm not sure how Boost generally does it, or if there even is
a policy...

Thanks,
- Kim

Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Warning policy

[Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...>]

Hi Kim,

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When building the tests on Windows using VC9, I get a couple of secure
> SCL warnings on std::copy.
>
> Does anybody mind if I disable those warnings via a define in the
> Jamfile? I'm not sure how Boost generally does it, or if there even is
> a policy...
>

I don't mind. If you can do:

  <toolset>msvc:<define>_SCL_SECURE

That would be nice.

-- 
Dean Michael C. Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.

Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Warning policy

[K. G. <kim...@gm...>]

Hi Dean,

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 05:27, Dean Michael Berris
<mik...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I don't mind. If you can do:
>
>  <toolset>msvc:<define>_SCL_SECURE
>
> That would be nice.

It's _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS, but yes, otherwise added! Committed in
the http_integration branch.

Thanks,
- Kim

Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Warning policy

[Dean M. B. <mik...@gm...>]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Kim Gräsman <kim...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Dean,
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 05:27, Dean Michael Berris
> <mik...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> I don't mind. If you can do:
>>
>>  <toolset>msvc:<define>_SCL_SECURE
>>
>> That would be nice.
>
> It's _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS, but yes, otherwise added! Committed in
> the http_integration branch.
>

This is only in the tests right? I'm thinking since we're header only
we should let the users define that instead. ;-)

Thanks Kim! :)

-- 
Dean Michael C. Berris
Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.

Re: [cpp-netlib-devel] Warning policy

[K. G. <kim...@gm...>]

Hi Dean,

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:27, Dean Michael Berris
<mik...@gm...> wrote:
>
> This is only in the tests right? I'm thinking since we're header only
> we should let the users define that instead. ;-)

Yeah, it's only the tests that need an actual Jamfile, the headers are
pretty self-sufficient :)

- Kim