Re: [boost] Are warnings acceptable artifacts from builds?

Subject: Re: [boost] Are warnings acceptable artifacts from builds?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-12 09:50:24

Emil Dotchevski wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> AMDG
>>
>> 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?

Looks like I've made too subtle reference to -isystem in a prior post, where
I've said:

        For bonus points, assume that Boost is not installed system-wide,
        but is included in the project, possibly with local tweaks.

Using -isystem is fine if, and only if the application developer believe that
the Boost libraries that he is using were tested on exactly the same compiler
and operating system, and the version tested was exactly the same, and the
warnings were examined by the library developer and were found to be bogus.
Now, if I'm a building Boost as part of build process for my project, and
my version of gcc is not in the regular regression matrix, or I use trunk
snapshot with local modifications, then -isystem becomes rather questionable.

Not to mention that I don't remember ever seeing "known warnings" table
for any Boost library.

- Volodya