Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] MS C4180 on theMaintenanceGuidelines
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 17:42:58

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Bo Persson wrote:
>> Steven Watanabe wrote:
>>> AMDG
>>> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>>> Actually, prompted by compile error in Boost Exception on GCC
>>>> 3.4.5, triggered by a warning "fix" made just prior to release (see
>>>> I think we should ban
>>>> all last minute changes (including warning "fixes") that are not
>>>> addressing *bugs*.
>>> +1.  Warnings should be suppressed, but fixing them
>>> isn't worth the risk late in the release cycle.
>> Right, so they should be addressed early in the release cycle?
> No.  If this is to be a new "requirement", they should be addressed
> during trunk testing - not in the release.

I am not confident that even that is conservative enough. In reality,
Boost is used on more platforms than we test. Unless a warning fix
also fixes a bug, it has *no* positive effects other than hiding the
warning, yet may introduce problems that testing could miss.

Therefore, I can't justify any warning fix in code that has already
been released to the public. In my opinion the only responsible
(though still not bullet-proof) way to address such warnings is to
suppress them.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.

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