Vladimir Prus wrote:
We probably can use warnings-as-errors only for gcc and msvc, to reduce portability burden.
cxx (Tru64, VMS) has -msg_error option and aCC (HP-UX) has +We and +Weargs options. They all increase message(s) severity to error. When running boost tests on HP-UX/aCC6, I suppress 53 (!) warnings (via CXXOPTS env. variable). Thanks, Boris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
<pick your favorite color>. The problem is that the current regression reporting tools don't count warnings (previous version use to), so there's nothing nagging developers about warnings introduced in their code. If you treat warnings as errors
Fine we me, but not necessary fine with everybody ;-). And I suspect Boost.Build's warnings-as-errors=on work only with few compilers. But few is better than none.
The problem is that some warnings can't be avoided, at least not if you try to be portable. (Example: As discussed in a different thread: putting in a return statement to satisfy some compilers may trigger a 'unreachable code' warning on others.)
I think BOOST_AVOID_WARNING_XXX macro can be used to suppress a warning in compiler-specific way.
We probably can use warnings-as-errors only for gcc and msvc, to reduce portability burden.
- Volodya
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost