Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-08 16:59:03
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Michael
> 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) 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.
I agree that warnings are annoying; the problem is that a compiler may
choose to warn about anything at all, this is not subject to any
specifications. What if a compiler warns about lines being longer than
80 characters? I'd think that most would agree that such a warning is
So the question is whether a warning is reasonable or not, which is
subjective. Requiring warnings to be fixed is the same as requiring
the library developer to agree with your own subjectively picked
warnings level. I find that rather rude (it's not unreasonable to ask
politely, of course.)
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk