-----Original Message----- From: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 5:07 PM To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Cc: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Compiler warnings from Macs, IBM acc, Borland, Comeau, Metroworks, et al - are they a Problem?
I know this suggestion has been made but I want to expand a little on it.
a "library" - warning policy test. This would be just like any other library as far as the testing system goes. It would have maybe 10? small compile only tests which would emit warnings or not. The source would describe which warning is in fact being tested.
Presumably, the test matrix would permit one to look at the warning messages. (I'm not sure that the current one does this).
In anycase, it would permit the test matrix be used to check the warning status for each warning on each compiler at a specified warning level.
I see this as the only way to get a real grip on how these things vary among the array of compiler's we might use.
I realize that it would be some work, but I would think it wouldn't be all that much more - if any - than that which has already been expended on the wiki. It would have the great advantage of being relatively free of "maintainence by hand". It would automate the whole process of determining the status of different compilers in this area.
OK I can see some merit in this (now I understand your proposal a bit more). And I'm starting a new thread for Compiler Warnings Tests The Microsoft docs examples might be a good start? // C4244_level4.cpp // compile with: /W4 == actually warnings = all (warnings = errors will allow normal fail testing if it isn;t possible to check for warnings?) // AND MS extensions off? int aa; unsigned short bb; int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = b + c; // C4244 bb += c; // C4244 bb = bb + c; // C4244 bb += static_cast<unsigned short>(aa); // C4244 bb = bb + static_cast<unsigned short>(aa); // OK } So are you proposing a collection of these, with versions that should compile and others that should not, for example: int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = b + c; // C4244 } and another with int main() { int b = 0, c = 0; short a = static_cast<short>(b + c); // OK - NO C4244 } all run by a jamfile.v2. Or am I still misunderstanding you? Vicente has said he will think about it. I will also give it some more thought. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com