Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?

Subject: Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-25 10:50:31

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Daniela Engert via Boost
> Sent: 24 November 2018 17:32
> To: Boost Developers
> Cc: Daniela Engert
> Subject: Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
> 
<snip>

> > This is what bothers me most about the idea that all warnings must be
> > addressed in Boost libraries.
> 
> In most cases, I simply turn off compiler warnings by a #pragma after I
> convinced myself that "everything is fine, nothing to see here, get
> along". The simple fact that someone has audited warnings, acted
> accordingly, and then documented this - may be by just suppressing them
> in the source code - is an indicator of due diligence.

+1

I agree that supressing is the right thing to do, preferably with a comment justifying why.

> > Therefore while warnings should
> > be heeded I do not think it is possible in practical use to fix all
> > warnings for all compiler implementations without making code even more
> > obfuscated and more confusing than it normally is. It is an ideal to fix
> > all warnings but it is not a realistic goal in quite a number of
> > situations.

And one can ensure that all (recent and decent fine-grained warning control) compilers will not issue any warnings, which keeps the
novices unconfused by a load of warnings,

and most important, lawyers and pedants quiet too.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]