Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 00:50:51
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Nov 04 2009, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
>>> That won't work well for a test-runner will it? On the first
>>> warning, the build will fail. It would be better to have a report
>>> of all warnings that must be addressed.
FWIW - I've always made an effort to minimize or eliminate warnings in the
By the most phantastic of coincidences, a user reported a track item that
headers provokes a large number of warnings with msvc when warning level 4
(I use level 3). It turns out that the problem is the compiler cannot
create a default
constructor and assignment operator when a class has a const member. No
that the classes are derived from boost::noncopyable and No matter that
non of the tests copy or assign the classes in question. So to really fix
boost::noncopyable will need to be replaced with something else and that
will have to be documented and maybe even mini-reviewed. So there is
going to be a lot more here than meets the eye.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk