Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-05 13:26:28

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>
> but I'll point out yet another reason why this warnings discussion is
> silly:
>
> 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.

There is clearly a problem with the warnings generated by Boost code.  Addressing that problem makes Boost more usable and might even make it usable where it now is not.  That's hardly silly.

By all means, suggest a policy WRT RTTI, but there's no need to call this discussion silly.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.