Subject: Re: [boost] Are warnings acceptable artifacts from builds?
From: Noah Roberts (roberts.noah_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-09 12:50:00
Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Vinnie wrote:
>>> From http://sqlite.org/testing.html#coverage
>> Static analysis has not proven to be helpful in finding bugs.
> Considering that they use plain C, it is not very surprising that their
> "static analysis" by use of mild warning options has not proven to be
>> Our experience, then, [...]
> Without even attempting a *real* static analysis, referring to
> "experience" is a bit misplaced. Just my very humble opinion.
> Back to topic: warnings should disappear at least from headers,
> *whenever possible*.
> Without real code separation between modules in C++, user applications
> are affected by library code. If a given user has a strict policy of not
> having *any* warnings during their build, then that policy is enough to
> prevent them from using Boost. I'm pretty sure that this scenario is not
> something that library authors would easily accept.
Well, we have that policy and still can use boost. We just find we're
disabling warnings all over the place. Really silly stuff a lot of the
time too, like someone comparing an int to a size_t.
We simply had to disable the "assignment op could not be generated"
warning. Unfortunately boost also causes an unreachable code warning
and that we DON'T want to disable.
There are many places that seem like they could use some cleaning up.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk