Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 07:33:13
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:36 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> 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
>> 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.
>> It not only doesn't look good. It isn't good.
> No disagreement from me.
> Some stats might help:
> Boost-1.41 pre-beta on ubutunu-9.1 with gcc-4.4.1 produces an 11 Mb log file
> from the build, with 133 THOUSAND LINES of output.
> And that's just from building the binaries - so a tiny subset of Boost - I
> dread to think what a full test build would reveal.
> In fact the more I think about this, the more I feel that we should fix as
> much of this as we can for 1.41.
One possible approach would be to create a wiki page that describes:
* A first cut at a Boost policy on warnings.
* For the current release of the critical compilers, what compiler
switches apply. "Critical compilers" are GCC, VC++, for now.
* How a developer using bjam can run local tests with those switches.
* A list of libraries known to have serious warning issues.
Anything else will take too much time to be useful for 1.41.0.
Would anyone like to take a cut at starting such a wiki page?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk