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

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-06 03:14:58

On Friday 03 March 2006 15:57, Reece Dunn wrote:

> 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.

This is technically possibly, but that would mean that <warnings>all will be 
still unsuable with msvc, because it will produce a large number of spurious 
warnings.

> However, I am open to suggestions.

I think we should <warnings>all add /W3 on msvc, and simulary lower the 
warning level for CW.

- Volodya