Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-06 20:55:56
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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).
We are all at close to 0 warnings, just accept that. The difference is
only in what level of warnings a particular developer is most
comfortable with. We are all reasonable people and I think that it is
safe to assume that none of us are sloppy in that selection.
Note also #pragma GCC system_header used in the GCC standard library.
Easy solution to the same problem. This also indicates that they
didn't think that "fixing" all warnings in STL was a better idea, but
I guess we're better than those hackers.
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