Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2] warning support

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-19 15:12:48

Reece Dunn wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 
>>On Monday 19 September 2005 14:51, Reece Dunn wrote:
>>
>>>>I'd argue that <warnings>all should be a default. Noted that gcc.jam 
>>>>now has a hardcoded -Wall, so:
>>>>
>>>>1. You proabably need to remove that hardcode, or verify that feature
>>>>indeed overrides -Wall (I think so).
>>>>2. If you remove hardcode, I'd prefer <warnings>all to be default.
>>>
>>>I didn't notice that! You are right - it should be removed and
>>><warnings>all made default. Note that this will significanly increase 
>>>the number of warnings issued (especially by the msvc compiler)!
>>
>>Well, #pragma is they key for that compiler?
> 
> 
> There will be a lot of #pragmas, but that comes with the territory.

>From my experience with VC from 6 to 2005, there are only about eight 
warnings worth suppression. The rest can (and IMO, must) be easily 
fixed. My policy is to fix (or suppress, if it cannot/shouldn't be 
fixed) the warnings ASAP, and if you foolow the policy from the 
beginning of the project, it's easy to write code that doesn't emit 
warnings.

Of course, sometimes you have to maintain legacy code with a lot of 
warnings in it, and fixing the warnings doesn't look feasible. It isn't 
a good idea to fix something if it isn't broken. I found that in such 
cases setting lower level of warnings doesn't help a lot, so the best 
alternative is to suppress warnings at all. And <warnings>off already 
does it.

Andrey