From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-06 03:44:39
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>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
> > meaning of on or off.
>This is technically possibly, but that would mean that <warnings>all will
>still unsuable with msvc, because it will produce a large number of
The idea for <warnings>all is to enable *all* warnings. It is possible to
use msvc with this option - it just means wrapping <vector>, <map>, Boost
headers and other additional library headers within #pragma disable blocks.
This makes it possible to use the <warnings>all <warnings-as-errors>on
> > However, I am open to suggestions.
>I think we should <warnings>all add /W3 on msvc, and simulary lower the
>warning level for CW.
Then how will developers enable all warnings on these toolsets? The
<warnings>on option already does this for msvc and cw. I would like ot keep
the meaning of the 3 warning levels:
off -- disable warnings
on -- enable warnings
all -- enable all warnings, no matter how spurious
Your proposal would change the meaning of that and would mean that msvc and
cw users would have to use (non-portable) compiler flags to provide all
warnings, making BBv2 harder to use and more confusing.
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