Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?

Subject: Re: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
From: Daniela Engert (dani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-11-27 19:14:21

Am 27.11.2018 um 19:58 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:

> I disagree. I think, the choice is only there as long as you target a
> specific language implementation, or the very few of them which offer
> the choices you care about. If you're trying to write portable code,
> like we most often do in Boost, for example, you really don't have a
> choice and have to assume the behavior is really undefined. And this
> is the worst thing because it is a constant source of bugs and is not
> useful to the programmer. The ironic thing is that you can't even
> check for a possible overflow in portable C++ since "it doesn't
> happen" by the language rules and the compiler is allowed to subvert
> or completely discard your checks. Over the years I have grown a habit
> of avoiding signed integers where not genuinely needed.
> 
> On the topic of performance gains, yes, there are some, but I'm not
> really convinced they are significant enough in general and can't be
> achieved by careful coding where truly needed.

Exactly my position in this regard. If only there were a signed integral
type with modulo arithmetic in C++. In other words: the raw underlying
hardware implementation without the UB semantics demanded by C++.

Ciao
  Dani