From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-19 15:12:48
Reece Dunn wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>On Monday 19 September 2005 14:51, Reece Dunn wrote:
>>>>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.
>From my experience with VC from 6 to 2005, there are only about eight
warnings worth suppression. The rest can (and IMO, must) be easily
fixed. My policy is to fix (or suppress, if it cannot/shouldn't be
fixed) the warnings ASAP, and if you foolow the policy from the
beginning of the project, it's easy to write code that doesn't emit
Of course, sometimes you have to maintain legacy code with a lot of
warnings in it, and fixing the warnings doesn't look feasible. It isn't
a good idea to fix something if it isn't broken. I found that in such
cases setting lower level of warnings doesn't help a lot, so the best
alternative is to suppress warnings at all. And <warnings>off already
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk