Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-07 14:05:14

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> However this will not address the issue at hand, which is that people
>>>  who use higher warning levels will see tons of warnings. A better
>>> attitude is http://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html#faq35.
>>
>> This attitude is a polite excuse with no practical rationale behind.
>> One may ask, how they can make sure their code works with my compiler
>> if I see number of warnings that suggest some dirty hacks around
>> aliasing are used, so potential undefined behaviour is handing in the air.
> 
> Yes, but not all warnings are like that. Many warnings inform about
> tricky semantics or tricky side effects,
> [...]

True, but the zlib attitude is expressed in general manner and as such
it rises questions and concerns. That's why I vote for "do not ignore
warnings, but review them one by one", as I explained in my other post
in this thread.

>> However, "never ignore" does not necessary mean always fix your code to
>> silent warnings. It means that if warning is reported, it should be
>> analysed what the complain is about and action should be taken: fix code
>> or silent warning or ignore. Ignore after check is fine, as long as
>> "never ignore warnings" approach is followed.
> 
> Fine, but this is not what the issue is about, I don't think. The
> problem is that there are companies that require -Wall -Werror or some
> such.

Sure. I doubt it's possible to fulfil coding standards of every
user of Boost.

> Otherwise, what you're describing sounds like common sense to me.

OK

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org