Subject: Re: [boost] Help needed in fixing warnings
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-10 17:02:51
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Emil Dotchevski
> 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
> too many.
I meant latter, not former.
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