Subject: Re: [boost] Are warnings acceptable artifacts from builds?
From: Gpderetta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-11 20:42:07
Il giorno 12/set/2009, alle ore 01.46, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]
> ha scritto:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Steven Watanabe
> <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> Well umm I'm not sure it's helpful at all then. It would be nice
>>> to be
>>> able to pass to the compiler a list of paths it should consider
>>> "3rd-party" and not warn unless the warning depends on user
>>> constructs, which I guess fits your statement that it handles
>>> templates okay. But maybe that's problematic for the same reasons
>>> pragma once is.
>> You can use -isystem instead of -I.
> Could someone test this with Boost, that is, could someone confirm
> that using this approach gets rid of (only) the unwanted warnings?
Fwiw, I usually never see warnings from boost code because it comes
installed from my os, a Linux distro, in /usr/include which gcc
implicitly treats as -isystem.
-- Gpd Inviato da iPhone
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk