Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 13:29:27
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> I'm *not* saying we should do this for 1.41, but should we have an
>> official policy regarding compiler warnings and which ones we regard
>> as "failures"?
>> I realize these can get pretty busy-body at times, but if the user
>> sees several pages of warnings when building Boost it doesn't look so
>> good. So my suggestion would be that we have two test-runners (if we
>> have any spare!) that build with warnings-as-errors, maybe:
>> -Wall -pedantic -Wstrict-aliasing -fstrict-aliasing -Werror
> By the way, building Boost gives large number of warnings related to
> strict aliasing.
As long as these warnings report actual violation of the C++ standard
(as opposed to warning about a potential for violation) they should be
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk