Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 13:29:27

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

As long as these warnings report actual violation of the C++ standard
(as opposed to warning about a potential for violation) they should be
fixed IMO.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode