[Owasp-esapi-c++] Boost

[Kevin W. Wall]

If you really must toture yourself, you might at least want to try
Cygwin or UWin. ;-)
-kevin

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Amodio
<dan.amodio at aspectsecurity.com> wrote:
> Fixed it.
>
> What a pain.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Walton [mailto:noloader at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: Daniel Amodio
> Cc: Kevin W. Wall; David Anderson; owasp-esapi-c++ at lists.owasp.org
> Subject: Re: [Owasp-esapi-c++] Boost
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Daniel Amodio <dan.amodio at aspectsecurity.com> wrote:
>> Has anyone gotten Boost (more specifically boost test) working on windows with mingw/gcc ?
> Do we really have to do that?
>
> I would really prefer to write *nix code on *nix, and Windows code on Windows. For the most part, all code should cross over without much fuss. Otherwise, we've got an additional layer that needs to be audited :(
>
>> I'm getting an ungodly amount of compile errors, no matter what I do.
>
> My apologies in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owasp-esapi-c++-bounces at lists.owasp.org
>> [mailto:owasp-esapi-c++-bounces at lists.owasp.org] On Behalf Of Kevin W.
>> Wall
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:31 AM
>> To: David Anderson
>> Cc: owasp-esapi-c++ at lists.owasp.org
>> Subject: Re: [Owasp-esapi-c++] Boost
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:25 AM, David Anderson <david.anderson at aspectsecurity.com> wrote:
>>> I looked at the Boost libraries some time ago for classes that I
>>> thought might be useful in ESAPI-C++.  This was my list:
>>>
>>> Bimap
>>> DateTime
>>> Filesystem?
>>> Program Options
>>> Property Map
>>> Regex/Xpressive
>>> System
>>> Test
>>> Tokenizer?
>>>
>>> While there may be a number of alternatives for some of these, I like
>>> the fact that Boost seems to be viewed as something of a standard by
>>> the community.  In fact, it is my understanding that some subset of
>>> all of the Boost libraries is being considered for inclusion in the
>>> C++ Standard.  For me, all other factors being equal, this tips the balance in favor of Boost.
>>
>> Works for me. And like Daniel remarked in a separate email thread, if we are going to use Boost at all, then we probably might as well use Boost Test for unit testing.
>>
>> Anyone have any objections? If so, speak now or forever hold you peas.
>>
>> -kevin
>> --
>> Blog: http://off-the-wall-security.blogspot.com/
>> "The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
>> We *cause* accidents."        -- Nathaniel Borenstein
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-esapi-c++ mailing list
>> Owasp-esapi-c++ at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-esapi-c++
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-esapi-c++ mailing list
>> Owasp-esapi-c++ at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-esapi-c++
>>
>



-- 
Blog: http://off-the-wall-security.blogspot.com/
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
We *cause* accidents."        -- Nathaniel Borenstein