Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 13:20:35
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I would like the trunk tests and display matrix to add a couple of options
> each platform.
> currently it includes OS, compiler, compiler version, etc.
> I would like to add
> a) warning level
> b) optimization level
I agree with this (perhaps no need to test at multiple warning levels)
but I'll point out yet another reason why this warnings discussion is
Q: How do we know that Boost Exception works when RTTI is disabled?
A: I'm personally testing on whatever GCC I have installed and on MSVC
8/9, and I don't see anyone complaining about other platforms.
We don't test optimized builds, we don't test with exceptions or RTTI
disabled, but apparently that "class foo has virtual functions but
non-virtual destructor" is more important.
Also, before drafting a policy on warnings, is it a good idea to draft
a policy on RTTI support? I'm asking because I like to think that
no-RTTI support solves real problems for some users yet we're OK
without an official policy -- for example, no-RTTI support was added
to Boost Exception by strong demand from the users, and I would have
added it even if we had an official policy that required RTTI.
Reverge Studios, Inc.