Re: [boost] Boost Policy on compiler warnings?

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 07:41:00

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 01:47, David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>
> > At 09:25 AM 8/6/2002, Pete Becker wrote:
> >  >Warnings create, in essence, language variations. Today they're one of
> >
> > the
> >
> >  >biggest obstacles to portability.
> >
> > Sigh...  I'm afraid you're right.
> >
> > That would argue for either not reporting warnings at all, or only
> > reporting warnings that are likely to be common to many platforms.
> >
> > I'd like to hear from others.  Or maybe nobody cares about warnings and
>
> we
>
> > should forget the whole idea.
>
> People do care. When I ship my library out and someone sees a huge pile of
> warnings, it reflects badly on my code (regardless of whether it's
> justified), and makes people nervous about using it.

Yep, that is my experience too.
Our policy has always been to avoid all warning (but compiling with allmost 
all warnings on). If there are many warnings that are 'justified', people do 
not look at the warnings anymore and later in the process will miss an 
important warning.