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.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk