Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Bo Persson (bop_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 08:18:44
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> 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
> We are all at close to 0 warnings, just accept that. The difference
> only in what level of warnings a particular developer is most
> comfortable with. We are all reasonable people and I think that it
> safe to assume that none of us are sloppy in that selection.
> Note also #pragma GCC system_header used in the GCC standard
> Easy solution to the same problem. This also indicates that they
> didn't think that "fixing" all warnings in STL was a better idea,
> I guess we're better than those hackers.
Well, when you implement a standard library for a particular compiler,
you are allowed (and in some places even required) to use code that
Writing a highly portable library is a totally different thing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk