Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-10 16:36:20

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Patrick Horgan <phorgan1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Jeffrey Bosboom wrote:
>>
>> Patrick Horgan wrote:
>>>
>>>   But redundant.  It's already built into gcc to do this.  If you just
>>> have
>>>   the pragma and then build with -Wsystem-headers it turns the warnings
>>> back
>>>   on.  No sense in reinventing the wheel.
>>>   Cheers,
>>>   Patrick
>>
>> But wouldn't that also cause the standard library and other actual system
>> headers to generate warnings?  It would presumably be difficult to pick out
>> the Boost warnings from the standard library ones, just as Boost users
>> currently complain about picking out warnings from their code amidst Boost
>> warnings.
>
> That's a great point.  Really, I would not use that pragma at all.  I would
> make the header not generate errors, or silence individual ones.

What I suggested has the ability for Boost developers or anyone else
to #define BOOST_NO_GCC_SYSTEM_HEADER to disable the use of #pragma
GCC system_header within Boost, if we adopt it. Would you agree that
this is better than just using #pragma GCC system_header without the
ability to disable it? :)

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode