Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Chicares (chicares_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-19 15:09:41

Thomas Matelich wrote:
> This brings up the issue of warnings. I realize we don't want to reject
> code based on warnings, but maybe the regression tests could start
> making files to show compiler output for the tests. I wouldn't put
> those in CVS necessarily, but often warnings from one compiler will be
> errors on another, so having access to those will make
> maintenance/upgrading a little nicer.

I think it would be handy to have all[1] warnings in the regression
test output. Anyone who reads that is probably interested in all the
information they can get. Knowing what other compilers say can help.

Making this stuff more readily available than that isn't a good idea,
because naive users might see it as a measure of quality and not
realize that some warnings don't necessarily reflect on the quality
of the library. Even worse would be to give a summary with counts
of warnings.

[1] What does it mean to enable 'all' warnings? Not all compilers
have a monotone none...some...lots...all switch. For instance,
gcc can warn about member order mismatches between the initializer
list and the class declaration, with the -Weffc++ switch. But
that switch, by enforcing OOP practices, complains about STL.
There's an art to choosing the warnings that make sense.

OTOH, is anything gained by saving, say, msvc warnings in addition
to those generated by a picky EDG compiler like comeau?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at