[cfe-dev] Clang-cl.exe and the VC++ preprocessor

[Daniel James]

On 10 July 2014 21:14, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>
> 2) It may be desirable for Boost (and Boost users) to opt into a more strict
> mode. I get the flags backwards all the time (Reid or someone else will
> correct me) but we have two flags to control compatibility: one for
> essentially conforming (or at least not horrible broken) extensions, and
> another for bug-for-bug compatibility. I think the latter is
> '-fms-compatibility' while the former is '-fms-extensions', but again, i get
> them backwards. Anyways, perhaps Boost would want to use
> '-fno-ms-compatibility' where possible to get a more conforming
> implementation.

Since much of Boost is header only, the user controls the compile
flags, so that's not possible.