Subject: Re: [boost] [warnings] Are warnings acceptable artifactsfrom builds?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-09 02:06:09
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Michael
> Fawcett<michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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. Â 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
You've picked a wrong example. If such code is part of Boost, then it's
in violation of library guidelines:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk