Subject: Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-19 19:43:51
On 19/11/2018 19:20, Brian Kuhl via Boost wrote:
> I'd like to confirm the guidance on Warnings I find here
> is still considered current?
More or less - the advice could use updating, and each new compiler
release brings new warnings, some busy-body some not, so it's a constant
struggle to catch up.
Speaking for myself I'm happy to fix or suppress (as appropriate)
warnings in my stuff, so bring on the PR's I would say ;)
Of course you may have to nag the community maintenance team if you're
submitting PR's against unmaintained libraries.
> context ...
> At Wind River we are in the process of working with Boost 1.68 and VxWorks
> 7 (with Dinkum 7.00 with and Clang 6.0 for ARM and IA boards and GCC 8.1
> for PowerPC ) with the hope of bundling Boost with our product.
> Many of our customers make certified systems ( Planes, Trains, Medical
> Equipment, Factory Automation, etc. ) and the trend in theses industries is
> to be pedantic about eliminating all compiler warnings.
> While we have not traditionally required zero warnings in open source code
> shipped with our product, there is pressure on us to move in that
> direction, and as result we will probably be contributing pull requests
> specifically to fix or suppress compiler warnings over the coming years.
> I'd like to establish clear guidelines for my team as to what is an
> appropriate "coding standard" for Boost in regards to compiler warnings.
> While it is simple to say, everything displayed by -Wall, in practice there
> are many edge cases, e.g. is an unused parameter acceptable in test code?
> So I'd like to get the maintainers guidance.
> Many thanks
> Brian Kuhl
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus