Subject: Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 04:37:40
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Patrick Horgan
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:07 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [Wiki] Changes in information about gcc warnings.
> On 01/14/2011 06:43 AM, Philipp Reh wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have some comments on the guidelines.
> > First of all: Goob job on the article
> It's a collaboration, but I've done the GCC stuff. I can't tell you how excited I am
> to have someone pitch in with comments that 1) cares about it, and 2) has
> knowledgeable opinions. As you'll see below I agree with almost everything you
> say, and think some of this should be added to the wiki page. To do that we
> should come up with examples of code that looks correct but is not which will be
> exposed by each particular warning. Of course better is building with these
> things turned on and then dealing with things that actually show up problems in
> Examples from real boost code of problems that are shown up by building with
> warning options turned on gets people's attention. If there's no bang for the
> buck it's a hard sale.
Looks good advice to me. I'll leave you two (and others if they pitch in) to update the
guidelines on GCC. It is a wiki after all, but on-list discussion before edits is wise.
Do we need a separate section on Clang?
If so will you create one with what (little) info you have so far?
And we are still missing guidance on other compilers.
Are they dead in the water?
--- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk