Re: [jamboost] Re: [BBv2] warning support

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-19 06:15:56

Vladimir Prus wrote:
>On Monday 19 September 2005 14:51, Reece Dunn wrote:
> > How about: "Enable a tool-defined set of warnings that enables
> > 'compile-time' warnings according to that tool." :)
>
>That's "tool" repeated twice and "warning" repeated twice. Just "Enables
>default warning level for the tool"

I must learn not to write in a room that has an echo... before you know it 
I'll be overrun by the had had / that that problem! ;)

> > >I'd argue that <warnings>all should be a default. Noted that gcc.jam 
>now
> > >has a hardcoded -Wall, so:
> > >
> > >1. You proabably need to remove that hardcode, or verify that feature
> > >indeed
> > >overrides -Wall (I think so).
> > >2. If you remove hardcode, I'd prefer <warnings>all to be default.
> >
> > I didn't notice that! You are right - it should be removed and
> > <warnings>all made default. Note that this will significanly increase 
>the
> > number of warnings issued (especially by the msvc compiler)!
>
>Well, #pragma is they key for that compiler?

There will be a lot of #pragmas, but that comes with the territory.

> > In a previous incarnation, I had a 'default' value for warnings that 
>would
> > be "the tool's default list of enabled warnings", but it was felt that
> > default <==> on. I am happy either way as there are benefits to both
> > approaches.
>
>Just as Alexey, I don't see any practical difference between "default" and
>"on".

Noted.

- Reece