Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 16:33:15

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Emil Dotchevski
<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> But I will say we still did it - ie we still found it valuable to get
>> to zero warnings.
> I read your post carefully and it seems like fixing the warnings
> didn't uncover any bugs and at least for one warning the fix
> introduced bugs; +0 for the former, -1 for the latter leaves me
> wondering what value do you find in fixing the warnings.

Hard to find, but it was there:

>> Once you get to 0, warnings will find more
>> bugs than they cause, but not during the drive to 0

I think everyone agrees 0 warnings are worthwhile (mostly to increase
visibility of new warnings, some of which will flag real bugs). It is
just a question of how worthwhile, and what, if anything, should be
done when you are in the way too many warnings situation.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at