-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Emil Dotchevski skrev:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Brian Ravnsgaard Riis <brian@ravnsgaard.net> wrote:
Actually, I believe they're claiming that they more heavily rely on a rather impressive unit- and regression testing scheme than on compiler warnings. No warning has ever informed them of a bug that their regression tests would not have caught.
If the "we want no warnings dammit" crowd main argument is "at my company we have zero-warnings policy, we can't do anything about it" then arguing whether or not any particular warning should be addressed is pointless (OTOH, I'd bet that no company has zero-warnings policy because some warnings can't be dealt with any other way but by disabling them.)
Uhm.. Which wasn't actually what I was trying to address. My comment was solely pointed at the SQLite-crowd comment, that they believe warnings are not just meaningless, but dangerous. My position (should you want it) is that warnings should not be ignored *out of hand*, and if you do ignore it, you should try to shut the compiler up. Having loads of warnings scroll by that you "know" do no real harm lowers your attention to warnings in general, so you're less likely to notice when something serious shows up, which it *will* sooner or later. I'm not saying that the boost libraries should be warning-free at all warning levels on all compilers; this is nigh impossible in the real world. I *do* believe that, as Volodya mentioned, compiling error-free on a select set of compilers at a given (read: reasonable) warning level should be possible. Obviously G++ and MSVC are what I'm thinking about here, but both this and the given warning level should be stated somewhere in connection with the coding standards. /Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqqn1kACgkQk1tAOprY6QGZiACfXiQcbOS41qOmNB/hBKOBzu9R /hYAn32SaTpH6j0NBR/5arlomTLOIzSe =24T8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----