IMO, trying to be warning-free on the multitude compilers Boost supports is what can be called a sysiphus job. Not only this is tedious and practically inachievable, it actually makes the code worse - typically, in terms of maintainability, sometimes performance. Striving for no warnings at the highest levels gives false sense of purity but really nothing more than that.
But, if you're really interested in keeping Boost warning-free, you should put some effort into it. Run tests regularly, monitor changes, submit pull requests. Nothing is going to change unless someone interested acts.
This is tricky: I do try and keep my stuff warning free - but every new compiler release introduces warnings for things that weren't considered issues before (meanwhile things that I feel really should be warnings - like incorrect use of noexcept specifications remain curiously diagnostic free). Then you have to ask - which compiler? MSVC and GCC warnings are generally fixable - though I have certainly come up against warnings that seem to be unsilenceable no matter what you do. Intel is another matter - this generally produces pages and pages of "remarks" that aren't even warnings as such. BTW we do have some guidance on this: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/WarningsGuidelines And a now completely out of date effort to make Boost warning free: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/WarningFixes This might actually be easier to achieve now that we have PR's available as a tool. But it's a big job for sure. Best, John.