Subject: Re: [boost] [new Warnings policy] MS C4180 on theMaintenanceGuidelines
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 09:45:12
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> 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.
The suppression constructs can rot. Future changes to code may obviate the original need to suppress warnings, while preventing the compiler from warning about new (potential) problems. If the maintainer isn't sufficiently disciplined to stop suppressing warnings while working on changes, and then suppressing them again later, if still necessary, other problems can be hidden. It isn't hard to imagine that discipline be lost or never adopted.
Changing code to eliminate warnings avoids the need for suppression constructs and leaves the compiler free to warn when the code is changed in the future.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk