Subject: Re: [boost] Bug report rejected as conformant
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-14 01:03:47
On 1/13/2018 6:53 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> But when the answer argues that they are conformant because in the
>> particular case a warning is valid for establishing conformance, then
>> I cannot understand it. We might as well say that any compiler which
>> issues warnings whenever a compiler error should occur, simply because
>> it can continue compiling, is a valid C or C++ conformant compiler.
> It is. That's what the standard says. Whether a diagnostic starts with
> the word "error" or the word "warning" is irrelevant for conformance.
So basically if the code continues compiling, even if it produces an
incorrect result, the C++ standard says that the compiler is conformant
because it issued a warning to the end-user instead of an error. Thanks
for notifying me about this. I really did not know that this is how the
standard is written. Needless to say if I were on the C++ standard
committee I would have voted against this, but that is irrelevant to the
way things are. At least I have learned something.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk