From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 12:36:27
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Sohail Somani wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:07 AM
>>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>>> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(
>>> Marc Mutz wrote:
>>>> I for one think that this is
>>>> a serious issue, and I encourage you to accept such patches (not for
>>>> 1.34.0, obviously, but 1.34.1) and make it a release goal
>>> for 1.35 (or
>>>> 1.34.1) to reduce the number of warnings to a decent level.
>>> Maybe change
>>>> the regression tests to highlight any kind of compiler
>>> diagnostics in
>>>> <pick your favorite color>.
>>> The problem is that the current regression reporting tools don't count
>>> warnings (previous version use to), so there's nothing
>>> nagging developers
>>> about warnings introduced in their code.
>> If you treat warnings as errors
> Fine we me, but not necessary fine with everybody ;-). And I suspect
> Boost.Build's warnings-as-errors=on work only with few compilers.
> But few is better than none.
The problem is that some warnings can't be avoided, at least not if you
try to be portable.
(Example: As discussed in a different thread: putting in a return statement to
satisfy some compilers may trigger a 'unreachable code' warning on others.)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk