Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 12:31:05
John Maddock wrote:
> I'm *not* saying we should do this for 1.41, but should we
> have an official
> policy regarding compiler warnings and which ones we regard
> as "failures"?
If Boost documents the warnings settings used for each compiler, then all maintainers will have a consistent target while users know exactly what to expect. Obviously, individual maintainers may use stricter settings or cater to clients that do, but a minimum, consistent, documented policy would be highly useful for all concerned.
There should also be some policies about the sorts of warnings that are considered nuisance and will not be addressed.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk