Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] MS C4180 on the Maintenance Guidelines

Subject: Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] MS C4180 on the Maintenance Guidelines
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 18:18:15

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Emil Dotchevski
<emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Paul A. Bristow
> <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Why not replace all that by "No warnings should be emitted by Boost
>>> code. Use your best judgment to either fix or suppress the warning"
>>> followed by information on how warnings can be suppressed on various
>>> compilers?
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>>
>>> A) Users don't care why they don't see warnings.
>>
>> I think they *do* care about code quality, and dealing with warnings makes a
>> contribution (perhaps small).
>>
>>> B) Even if they did, if the build log has no warnings it is prohibitively
>> difficult to investigate why that is.
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm not clear what part you suggest replacing.
>
> I thought that it was clear, I propose to replace all of the existing
> warnings guidelines in the Wiki with the following: "No warnings
> should be emitted by Boost code. Use your best judgment to either fix
> or suppress the warning."

Actually, prompted by compile error in Boost Exception on GCC 3.4.5,
triggered by a warning "fix" made just prior to release (see
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/3641) I think we should ban all
last minute changes (including warning "fixes") that are not
addressing *bugs*.

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