Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 18:54:04
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> However this will not address the issue at hand, which is that people
> who use higher warning levels will see tons of warnings. A better
> attitude is http://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html#faq35.
This attitude is a polite excuse with no practical rationale behind.
One may ask, how they can make sure their code works with my compiler
if I see number of warnings that suggest some dirty hacks around
aliasing are used, so potential undefined behaviour is handing in the air.
The practical and reasonable approach is to just never ignore
warnings. Full stop.
However, "never ignore" does not necessary mean always fix your code to
silent warnings. It means that if warning is reported, it should be
analysed what the complain is about and action should be taken: fix code
or silent warning or ignore. Ignore after check is fine, as long as
"never ignore warnings" approach is followed.
-- 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