On Nov 22, 2005, at 9:15 PM, Kim Barrett wrote:
At 8:55 PM -0800 11/21/05, Robert Ramey wrote:
If this such a huge problem for you, why don't you just modify your local copy and be done with it?
I think you are missing my point. I've already addressed this locally (by adding the warning suppression option to our compiler configuration, and then filing a bug report against that configuration to remind us to change it back when the underlying problem is addressed).
However, do you (and the rest of the boost community) really want to release this in it's current state? Should every development group using gcc and the serialization library have to locally work around this? How many queries about this are there going to be on the boost mailing lists between now and a release that addresses this? And how many potential users of the library are going to try it, get large numbers of warnings, and go elsewhere?
I would like to support this opinion. We have several libraries and applications based on boost and usually get a large number of user complaints for each warning produced when compiling our codes. Matthias