Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Official warnings policy?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-11 13:56:02


Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> Looks like the warnings occur depending on the types used in the unit tests.
>> For example, the warning mentioned above comes from the test code:
>> typedef variant< short, const char* > t_var2;
>> typedef variant< unsigned short, const char*, t_var2 > t_var5;
>> typedef variant< unsigned short, const char*, t_var5 > t_var6;
>> t_var6 v6;
>> v6 = 58;
>> Which looks like a legitimate warning about converting an integer (58) to a
> short.
> Since this is expected, could the test use a static_cast to the right type?
> v6 = static_cast< t_var6 >(58);
> Does this quiet the warning?
> Or must it be v6 = static_cast< unsigned short >(58); ?
> Either way this would document that casting/converting takes place?
> And perhaps users should do this too? The static_cast documents that the author
> has thought about this.

I'd be careful about adding a static_cast, since it changes exactly
what's being tested. Part of the behavior of a class is the way it handles
implicit conversions. Even conversions that generate warnings sometimes
need to be tested.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at