Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 14:00:29
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir_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
> I would remove -pedantic, but otherwise, it's a very good idea.
This is the problem: *you* would remove -pedantic, but others want it.
> recent discussion left me with the impression that few folks care.
It is not about caring, once again the argument is about a personal
preference: is the ugliness and decreased readability that is often
required to silence a warning reasonable.
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk