Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 13:03:58

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"?
> 
> I realize these can get pretty busy-body at times, but if the user
> sees several pages of warnings when building Boost it doesn't look so
> good. So my suggestion would be that we have two test-runners (if we
> have any spare!) that build with warnings-as-errors, maybe:
> 
> -Wall -pedantic -Wstrict-aliasing -fstrict-aliasing -Werror

By the way, building Boost gives large number of warnings related to
strict aliasing. I reported it as ticket with one big log, but I
understand it is not really usable, so I'm going to prepare report per
library. Is it a good idea at all?

> Obviously these may prove to be far too busy-body, but is this worth
> a try?

I'm not an author of any of Boost libraries, but if I may answer this,
I think it is worth.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org