On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:58 AM, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
Nod. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all of boost be warning free with all possible compilers, that just wouldn't be possible IMO.
It is possible. For me, the bottom line from this discussion is that #pragma warning and #pragma GCC system_header are my best friends. :)
Sorry for getting in this late, but with gcc, isn't it better to just include boost code with --isystem instead of -I? I usually never see warnings from boost because I use the boost version that comes with the linux distro I use, which puts all headers in /usr/include. Gcc treats all headers there as system headers and doesn't show any warning. If I have to use of a boost installation in a non-standard include path, I make sure to use -isystem if I do not want to see warning. IMHO, with gcc at least, boost should just document that the preferred way to include boost headers, if not installed by default, is through -isystem, which has the double advantage of not polluting boost headers with compiler specific workarounds and still giving the user full control of whether he wants to see warnings or not. just my 2 eurocents, -- gpd