Re: [Boost-build] warnings (was: Problem with disabling warnings on gcc)

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-03 07:57:23

Vladimir Prus wrote:
>On Wednesday 01 March 2006 23:00, Reece Dunn wrote:
> >
> > BBv2 defaults to <warnings>all. After consideration (and the fact that 
>CW
> > generates a gazillion warnings in this case) it would be best to set the
> > default to <warnings>on.
>
>There's also gazillion warnings with msvc. We indeed should do something 
>about
>it, but I'm not sure if making <warnings>on default, or making 
><warnings>all
>translate to less agreesive switches on CW and MSVC is the best solution. 
>At
>least on gcc, all warnings from -Wall are reasonable.

What if we have a <warnings>default option or equivalent that translated to:
   <toolset>gcc/<warnings>default ==> <warnings>all
   <toolset>msvc/<warnings>default ==> <warnings>on
   <toolset>cw/<warnings>default ==> <warnings>on

This would retain the meaning of off, on and all so the user can specify 
these and provides a means of getting a reasonable level of warnings for 
compilers where <warnings>all is a bit too much. <warnings>default could 
then be tailored to each compiler so some of the more verbose warnings could 
be disabled (e.g. msvc's unreferenced argument) without impacting the 
meaning of on or off.

However, I am open to suggestions.

- Reece