Subject: Re: [boost] Help needed in fixing warnings
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-10 13:33:11
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:58 AM, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Nod. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of boost be warning free
> with all possible compilers, that just wouldn't be possible IMO.
It is possible. For me, the bottom line from this discussion is that
#pragma warning and #pragma GCC system_header are my best friends. :)
> But does
> that mean that we shouldn't try to do better with the most popular tools?
I think first we need to figure out what's the goal of removing
warnings: is it to impose higher warning level to developers, or to
provide warning-free user experience.
If it is the former, I find it inappropriate to cherrypick some
warnings *we* consider silly and tell the user, you know what, we're
not doing anything about these particular ones, gg. If I work at a
company that requires warning-free builds, one warning is one warning
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