Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 05:46:36

David Abrahams wrote:

> on Wed Nov 04 2009, Vladimir Prus <> 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"?
>>> I realize these can get pretty busy-body at times, but if the user sees
>>> several pages of warnings when building Boost it doesn't look so good. So
>>> my suggestion would be that we have two test-runners (if we have any spare!)
>>> that build with warnings-as-errors, maybe:
>>> -Wall -pedantic -Wstrict-aliasing -fstrict-aliasing -Werror
>> I would remove -pedantic, but otherwise, it's a very good idea.
> Why should we remove -pedantic, specifically?

Because in my experience, that specific option tends to produce warnings concerning
100% conformance to the letter of the standard, as opposed to the warning that
actually hint on possible bugs.

However, as I've said to Emil already, it's not necessary to make upfront decision
about specific warning options. We can consider options as we go.

- Volodya

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