Re: [Boost-testing] Beginning tests with QNX 6

From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 03:58:39

<grin>Ah! The cavalry has arrived...</grin>

Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> .. Memory leak is "worse evil" than UB, because at least it is well defined.

Being pedantic, I think you meant "a lesser evil"? Anyway, they are both 
to be avoided.

I would also make the point that although we can get the library to 
compile by suppressing the warnings, the root cause of problem is still 
present in the header files.

My area of work is high reliability/high risk projects using the QNX 
RTOS and there is a "zero tolerance" approach to compiler warnings. If I 
derive classes from  the serialization header files then the warnings 
will appear when I compile my application code and be rejected on QA 
grounds.

I am new to Boost and I am willing to get more involved because I can 
see its potential applications. The question is, do the various authors 
look on their libraries as "industrial strength" utilities, or are they 
simply prototypes to test ideas for future inclusion into the C++ 
Standard Library?

Regards
Jim