Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.

Subject: Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-11 05:50:26

Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> You might like to enquire of GCC if there is a limit on the number of
> push'n'pops - as we discovered with MSVC (which severely limits its
> usefulness as with Boost libraries it would be easy to exceed the limit
> (about 50).  This limit increases the desirability of dealing the cause
> of the warnings, rather than silencing them).

What do you mean by "... easy to exceed the limit (about 50)"?

Do you mean 
#pragma warning(push)
#pragma warning(push)
#pragma warning(push)
... more than 50 times ...
#pragma warning(push)
#pragma warning(push)
#pragma warning(push)

...

#pragma warning(pop)
#pragma warning(pop)
#pragma warning(pop)
... more than 50 times ...
#pragma warning(pop)
#pragma warning(pop)
#pragma warning(pop)
? Frankly, I don't see why it should be difficult to avoid this scenario. It's only reasonable that a programmer has to avoid running out of stack space.

Or do you mean
#pragma warning(push)
...
#pragma warning(pop)
...
#pragma warning(push)
...
#pragma warning(pop)
... more than 50 times ...
#pragma warning(push)
...
#pragma warning(pop)
...
#pragma warning(push)
...
#pragma warning(pop)
? In that case, I wonder how anybody should be able to make effective use of this feature. But you knows, maybe MSVC really has this type of unexpected limitation.

Can you please clarify which of the above two scenarios apply?

Regards,
Thomas