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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-11 09:17:15

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Thomas Klimpel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:50 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.
> 
> 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)"?

Well, don't shoot the messenger ;-)

 I'm only reporting what it says in

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2c8f766e%28v=VS.100%29.aspx

"The compiler only supports up to 56 #pragma warning statements in a
compiland."

I'm not *quite* sure what that means either (or why even?).

But I suspect it explains why this method of warning suppression doesn't
always work.

And reinforces the view (strongly held by some) that altering the code is
the best policy.

Even that isn't always possible, but the more authors try, the less users
get overwhelmed (and alarmed) by avalanches of warning messages.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow,
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]  07714330204
pbristow_at_[hidden]