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
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."
-- 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