Re: [boost] [1.44][Serialization] fails to compile on OSX universal

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44][Serialization] fails to compile on OSX universal
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-21 00:33:51

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Jeff Flinn wrote:
>>>>> By the way Robert, thanks for clearing up all of the compiler
>>>>> warnings in both the lib and in portable_binary_archive over the
>>>>> last couple of releases.
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you appreciate this. I caused an unintended ripple effect
>>>> which resulted in much agony - which is likely not over..
>>>>
>>>> advice to prospective library developer's - use warning level 4
>>>> it's cheaper in the long run.
>>>
>>> #pragma warning(push,1) on MSVC, and #pragma gcc system_header are
>>> cheaper.
>>
>> hmmm - please expand upon this.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a good idea in general but I'm using this in
> Boost Exception and I'm not aware of any problems it causes. I have
>
> #if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(BOOST_EXCEPTION_ENABLE_WARNINGS)
> #pragma GCC system_header
> #endif
> #if defined(_MSC_VER) && !defined(BOOST_EXCEPTION_ENABLE_WARNINGS)
> #pragma warning(push,1)
> #endif
>
> at the top of the header files (and the matching pop for MSVC at the
> end of the file), so when I build the code I can use whatever warning
> level is comfortable for me (combined with #define
> BOOST_EXCEPTION_ENABLE_WARNINGS), while everyone else doesn't see any
> warnings (I hope.)
>
> Of course that is a moot point if you like warning level 4 or the
> --pedantic stuff in GCC, but I find it very difficult to justify many
> of the things (for example, casts) people normally do to work around
> warnings.

When I read you're response, I was thinking it was
another way to enable maximum warnings.  If I understand you
correctly, your view is that the warnings should be suppressed even
when users enable higher levels.

So it seems we've got entirely opposed points of view here.

Personally, I found that the excercise of modifying code to eliminate
warnings at the level resulted in eliminating a couple
of potential bugs and hopefully maintaining this will keep
new ones from creeping it.  I will concede that some warnings
are over the top and I would like a better way (in GCC) to
suppress them on a case by case basis.

Robert Ramey