Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 20:57:33

on Wed Nov 04 2009, "Stewart, Robert" <> wrote:

> John Maddock wrote:
>> I'm *not* saying we should do this for 1.41, but should we
>> have an official
>> policy regarding compiler warnings and which ones we regard
>> as "failures"?
> If Boost documents the warnings settings used for each compiler, then
> all maintainers will have a consistent target while users know exactly
> what to expect. Obviously, individual maintainers may use stricter
> settings or cater to clients that do, but a minimum, consistent,
> documented policy would be highly useful for all concerned.

Hear, hear!

I'd like it if we could choose a policy that could possibly work but
might be too strict, with the understanding that we can decide by
consensus to selectively weaken it if the policy presents a problem for
any specific library.

> There should also be some policies about the sorts of warnings that
> are considered nuisance and will not be addressed.

...or *need* not be addressed. IMO, any library author is free to jump
through as many extra hoops as he likes to suppress nuisances, but users
shouldn't expect them to.

Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon:
BoostPro Computing

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