Robert Ramey wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Wed Nov 04 2009, "John Maddock" <john-AT-johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
That won't work well for a test-runner will it? On the first warning, the build will fail. It would be better to have a report of all warnings that must be addressed.
FWIW - I've always made an effort to minimize or eliminate warnings in the serialization library.
By the most phantastic of coincidences, a user reported a track item that including headers provokes a large number of warnings with msvc when warning level 4 is used. (I use level 3). It turns out that the problem is the compiler cannot create a default constructor and assignment operator when a class has a const member. No matter that the classes are derived from boost::noncopyable and No matter that non of the tests copy or assign the classes in question. So to really fix this boost::noncopyable will need to be replaced with something else and that will have to be documented and maybe even mini-reviewed. So there is going to be a lot more here than meets the eye.
This is exactly one of the warnings that Boost could document as a "silly warning", that developers are assumed to disable. Potential users would then know - up front - whether their policy allows them to use Boost or not. And current users can check that the next release has a compatible policy, before upgrading. Bo Persson