Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-02 23:23:14

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 2 September 2010 11:20, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Personally, I wouldn't use a table for the
>>> data, it crams too much into a small space. I'd just use a separate
>>> page for each compiler.
>> Here's an example of what I mean.
>>
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/Warnings/Microsoft
> 
> I think that this would be more helpful if it just listed how each
> warning responds to various edits instead of suggesting how it should
> be fixed. For example, the unreferenced formal parameter warning
> section could look like this:
> 
> C4100 (Unreferenced formal parameter) - delete the parameter name or
> add a reference to the parameter in the function: (void)foo;

I thought I remember the latter triggering another warning. I don't 
remember the exact verbage or compiler. Or does the prefix (void) 
supress that?

Jeff