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" <Robert.Stewart-AT-sig.com> 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.
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: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk