From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 15:04:53
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jody Hagins
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 10:59:56 -0700
> "Sohail Somani" <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > But most (not all, for sure) warnings can be disabled by
> > -fno-some-feature. The only places where you might have to
> change the
> > code would be in the cases where the warning cannot be disabled.
> That's the problem. You don't want to disable the warning entirely.
> That's worse than ignoring them. You want to disable a warning at the
> point it is a warning.
> This is a MAJOR drawback of gcc...
So then there are two options given the two major toolsets:
* Change the code to quiet it (along the lines of BOOST_WARNING_XXX
macros) or fix it if it is a real warning
* Add a warning flag when compiling the specific file
If the first option isn't feasible for a given warning, then the second
one may apply as a last resort.
And there is still the option of ignoring the warnings, but Boost is a
harder sell if it cannot compile without warnings. That's been my
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk