Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-28 07:53:32
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Daniel James
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
> On 28 August 2010 10:26, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> Last year there where two long threads about Boost Warning policy. If
> >> I'm not wrong nothing was concluded.
> >> I think that we can have two warning policies: one respect to the
> >> Boost users and one internal for Boost developement.
> > There was some progress towards fixing warnings:
> > https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/WarningFixes
> > Also I'm fairly sure that Paul Bristow started a "How to fix warnings"
> > guidelines page, but I can't find it right now :-(
> Oh, sorry about that. I removed the links when I moved the guidelines back
> the main website and forgot to provide a way to find the wiki guidelines.
More specifically for your bookmarks ;-)
I think a major problem is that gcc doesn't allow as localised warning
suppression as MSVC. gcc users could usefully 'moan louder' about this.
It will always be necessary to suppress warnings - if only when the compiler
is raising a false alarm, and it won't be fixed for some time.
A recent example is at
This will prevent the hapless user, condemned to use \Za, getting a 4 page
slap in the face for having the temerity to ask for a student's t value!
But C4224 warnings can be valid and useful, so warning suppression really
should be localised.
--- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]