Re: [boost] Boost Policy on compiler warnings?

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-08 03:51:59

I think most of us _care_ about the warnings, it's just that there is no 
common way to say "ignore this class of warning, It's not relevant here"

also, some compilers generate warnings (which are NOT correct) on perfectly 
legal statements. (i.e. compiler bug)

I wonder if we could come up with some program to make an #ifdef'd source 
file that had all the requisite "ignore this waring" directives in it...for 
all of the compilers, given a set for one.  Hmmmmm, PITA.

At Tuesday 2002/08/06 17:45, you wrote:
>At 09:25 AM 8/6/2002, Pete Becker wrote:
>
> >At 09:15 AM 8/6/2002 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
> >>The new regression test reporting [optionally] makes compiler warnings
> >>visible.  That seemed to be a Good Thing, but it isn't 100% obvious which
> >>warnings we should be chasing.
> >
> >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.
>
>--Beman
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"