Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 10:45:20
Steven Watanabe wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but you can turn off -pedantic warnings individually. I
use -pedantic -Wall -Wno-long-long -Wno-unused-value a lot.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk