Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 21:00:17
Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> I would remove -pedantic, but otherwise, it's a very good idea.
>> recent discussion left me with the impression that few folks care.
> -pedantic issues all the warnings required by strict ISO C and ISO
> C++. They are in the standard for a reason, and I think it fair to
> expect system code that I build my code on to pass it. It's the same
> parts of boost that always generate warnings. Other parts are always
> free of warnings. Not rocket science to know that some are building
> better code.
Even the problems reported by -pedantic are not necessarily real problems.
For example, it's a huge pain to use long long with -pedantic, even though
all uses in boost should be protected by #ifdefs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk