Subject: Re: [boost] Towards a Warning free code policy proposal
From: Jens FinkhÃ¤user (jens_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-08-29 05:07:07
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 02:52:58PM +0900, Raymond Wan wrote:
> As a user who is somewhat following the discussion, I have to say that
> the approach used by gcc in terms of handling warnings is good.
> Warnings are shown and you have to add flags such as -Wall to disable
I think you got that wrong. From 'man gcc':
All of the above -W options combined. This enables all the
warnings about constructions that some users consider questionable,
and that are easy to avoid (or modify to prevent the warning), even
in conjunction with macros. This also enables some language-
specific warnings described in C++ Dialect Options and Objective-C
and Objective-C++ Dialect Options.
As an aside, I'd love to see boost not produce so many warnings. My own
code using boost can usually be compiled free of warnings, if it weren't
for those pesky boost headers.
It's not that I can't ignore warnings by eye after having figured
out what they mean and whether I care about them. It's that with
template code you'll include tons of headers tons of times, and a
single warning from boost repeated endlessly that way can drown out
stuff I want to pay attention to.
Anyway... I've dealt with that before, I'll deal with it again, but
from a purely wishful thinking point of view, it'd be awesome if
boost compiled warning free.
-- 1.21 Jiggabytes of memory should be enough for anybody.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk