Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 18:16:22
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
> For gcc and:
> /W3 /WX
> for MSVC?
> Obviously these may prove to be far too busy-body, but is this worth a
We don't necessarily have to to this globally.
It's not that hard for individual library maintainers
to turn this on for their tests. I've just started doing
that for the Units library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk