Reputation: 170340
I have a project compiled using __cdecl
calling convention (msvc2010) and I compiled boost using the same compiler using the default settings.
The project linked with boost but I at runtime I got an assert message like this: File: ...\boost\boost\program_options\detail\parsers.hpp Line: 79
Run-Time Check Failure #0 - The value of ESP was not properly saved across a function call. This is usually a result of calling a function declared with one calling convention with a function pointer declared with a different calling convention.
There are the following questions:
It looks that boost does compile and link with proper calling convention, still at runtime I get the above problem. I did a sample application using the same code and it works but in my application it fails. The only difference could be from project configuration or includes/stdafx.h
Upvotes: 0
Views: 2344
Reputation: 21
Just use
bjam ... **cxxflags=/Zp4**
while building boost libraries.
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 3049
As far as I know there's not way to make C++ use cdecl calling conventions (see MSDN Calling Convention). The C++ method calling is just different from C. The only opportunity that you have to use one of the C calling conventions is for functions, which include class static functions in C++. If you know that's the case you can try forcing the option when building by adding the option during the build:
bjam cxxflags=/Gd ...
(see BBv2 Builtin features)
Or to make it "permanent" set up a user-config.jam with your compiler and add it to the build options for all BBv2 msvc builds (see BBv2 Configuration and related docs). As for you other questions:
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 170340
I found the cause of the problem inside one of the shared property files: <StructMemberAlignment>4Bytes</StructMemberAlignment>
If I remove it the code will work. Still, I'm not sure why this is happening and how could I solve it without removing the above code (that was required by another library).
I added another question regarding boost and structure member alignment.
Upvotes: 0