Re: [boost] Warnings about derivation without explicit access control specified

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-12 05:32:11

Daniel Frey wrote:
> I saw a lot of new regression runs on various platforms.

Some of those are mine (HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris).

>   One obvious
> question: Should we remove the outdated runs?

First, my setup is not completely cronjob-automated, so my runs
may become outdated.  Second, my runs use different compilers
or different compiler versions than the tests already there.

> Now for the real reason of this message: One compiler (the SGI MIPSpro)
> complains (with a warning) about:
> 
> cc-1234 CC: WARNING File = /net/cci/maurer/boost/libs/utility/operators_test.cpp, Line = 52
>   Access control is not specified ("private" by default).
> 
>           : boost::operators<Wrapped1<T> >
> 
> The question is: Should we, for the sake of portability, support this
> warning by requesting an explicit access control specifier whenever we
> derive? 

Since only some Unix compilers give a warning there, and we may be able
to turn off the warning by command-line flags, people shouldn't probably
be made to change their habits.  For me, it's obvious that private
derivation is the default here.

Do we want to add the command-line flag to turn off the warning?

> PS: Would it make sense to have a "boost bug bashing week" or something
> to fix some more bugs/regressions? Or do we wait for users to complain
> and provide fixes?

The libraries itself are relatively bug-free, but there are plenty of
portability problems with some compilers.  For the HP-UX, IRIX, and DEC
compilers in the versions I have access to, it's probably a waste of time
to try and fix problems, unless it's obvious what to do, because the
compilers have relatively old front-ends with plenty of non-conformance
issues.

Jens Maurer