Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 16:36:34
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Emil Dotchevski<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM, vicente.botet<vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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) Â or if it is a new one. In this way the author will compare the effort to fix it or add the comment.
> I disagree. Warnings are a personal conversation between the compiler
> and the author of the code. They are nobody else's business.
Frankly, after just having reviewed (by using) a library that spit out
60+ warnings resulting in hundreds of kilobytes worth of warning
messages, I have to disagree. Those warnings become my business when
I have to wade through them just to find the bloody error message.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk