Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-03 01:25:56

Hi Emil,

> I don't want to turn this into an argument; I only asked if there is
> an official Boost policy on the subject. Is there a requirement that
> boost compiles with -Wall without warnings on all compilers?

I don't know if there is a formal policy, but I know a couple of years
ago boost wasn't clean for compiling with -Wall. In the meantime, someone
must have worked pretty hard to eliminate all the warnings. It would
be nice if that investment could be preserved. When developing new
code, -Wall catches many problems that would otherwise go undetected
until much later, when it is usually much more effort to figure out
what's wrong since the mind has moved on to other things.

I see, in the meantime you've checked in destructors, but without
the virtual keyword. Therefore the warnings didn't go away. Is this
an oversight?
I'm currently testing with the "virtual" added (below). This seems
to eliminate all warnings.


Index: boost/exception/detail/counted_base.hpp
--- boost/exception/detail/counted_base.hpp (revision 45057)
+++ boost/exception/detail/counted_base.hpp (working copy)
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
+ virtual
             ~counted_base() throw()
Index: boost/exception/detail/cloning_base.hpp
--- boost/exception/detail/cloning_base.hpp (revision 45057)
+++ boost/exception/detail/cloning_base.hpp (working copy)
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
+ virtual
             ~cloning_base() throw()

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at