Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 13:31:40

Bo Persson wrote:
> Stewart, Robert wrote:
>> John Maddock wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> For gcc and:
>>> 
>>> /W3 /WX
>>> 
>>> for MSVC?
>> That won't work well for a test-runner will it?  On the first 
>> warning, the build will fail.  It would be better to have a report 
>> of all warnings that must be addressed.
>> 
> 
> Yes, but it will still not satisfy those who compile at /W4.  :-)

I've tracked quite interesting discussion about /W3 vs /W4
related to Intel Threading Building Blocks

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-threading-building-blocks/topic/61895/

Where Alexey Kukanov draws conclusion as follows:

"So for MSVC, /W3 seems most reasonable level of warnings, and it
is the default one as far as I remember."

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