Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?

Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 16:14:22

Hi,
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?

> 
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>> warnings vary with compilers. It's a huge amount of extra work
>> to eliminate all warnings in all compilers.  And in many cases
>> "fixing" warnings really amounts to "hiding" warnings (e.g.
>> using a cast) so "fixing" them is worse than leaving them.
> 
> Using casts doesn't hide warnings so much as tell the compiler that you have examined the context and want it to convert something anyway.
> 
> Leaving warnings is worse than using a cast because library users are left to wonder whether there are problems in the library, can't find their own warnings and errors among your warnings, and can't build when they prefer to treat warnings as errors.

I think that warnings must be fixed when the needed work is not huge. It will be great if Boost defined which warning must be fixed and which ones are allowed. When a warning is allowed and not fixed a comment on the line could help users to know if the warning is know (will not be fixed)  or if it is a new one. In this way the author will compare the effort to fix it or add the comment.

For example, when a variable is not used it is simpler to remove the variable than adding a comment.

Vicente