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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk