Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-04 21:00:17

AMDG

Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> I would remove -pedantic, but otherwise, it's a very good idea. 
>> Unfortunately,
>> 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.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe