Author: Daniel Mehrmannn
Date: 09:32:10 12/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2005 at 12:10:29, Bo Persson wrote: >On December 16, 2005 at 11:20:56, Daniel Mehrmannn wrote: > >>On December 16, 2005 at 11:00:22, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>On December 16, 2005 at 08:43:05, Daniel Mehrmannn wrote: >>> >>>>On December 16, 2005 at 08:12:49, Alessandro Scotti wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 16, 2005 at 07:32:42, Daniel Mehrmannn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>But there is no other way than editing the SDK files - which is bullshit >>>>> >>>>>> Message: 'This function or variable may be unsafe. Consider using >>>>>>sscanf_s instead. To disable deprecation, use _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE. See >>>>>>online help for details.' >>>>> >>>>>Hi Daniel, >>>>>like the above message suggests, just define _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE symbol in >>>>>your project settings (or in the compiler command line) and the warning goes >>>>>away. >>>> >>>>Hi Alessandro, >>>> >>>>that's the problem. It doesn't work :( It's a bug i guess. If you looking with >>>>"google", you'll find it :(( >>>>So you must edit the SDK Files. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>>Daniel >>> >>>That's very strange. That always worked, and I think you are doing something >>>incorrectly. >>> >>>You can specify /D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE at the compiler command line, or you >>>can add _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE to the list of the predefined symbols somewhere >>>in the project settings. >>> >>>And FYI: Microsoft submitted "safe" versions of those functions to the C/C++ >>>Standard committees, and based on the feedback we believe they will be included >>>in the next versions of the Standards. So that's not only "the Microsoft way"... >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Eugene >> >> >>Hello Eugene, >> >>thanks for your help. >> >>I think it would be better to add your "secure" function as additional and not >>as standard and the user must do some steps to disable it. > >Do you always run your compiler with the default settings? > >I agree that they could have documented the change better, but that's a minor >problem. > >>Microsofte creating new own standards and think the world will be accept it >>easily ? > >Please take a look at this official document from the C Standard Committee's >site: > >http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1146.pdf > >It is a proposal "Extensions to the C Library - Part I: Bounds-checking >interfaces". > >> >>Thats is strange and may one reason why Microsoft is unpopularly in some zones. > >The usual complaint is that they wait too long before they implement new >standards. This time they were too fast? :-) > > >Bo Persson This paper is a working darft and not offical. However that a logical war with no result like "Windows vs Linux" and M$ did this step not the first time. So this is my last post. Best, Daniel
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.