-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Michael Caisse Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:12 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [wiki] Warning Guidelines for VC
On 12/31/2010 07:40 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
Well it's really good to get news from the 'horse's mouth' - even if the news is bad!
So it would seem that there is no reliable way to determine if any code (including STL) is C++ Standard Conforming, apart from trying to compile it on a non-Microsoft Standard Conforming Compiler in strict mode?
We might have different philosophies, but I would not have trusted any single compiler for that information.
Nor me! Not for "the most absurdly ambiguous language".
I often think of the Boost community as people who need to target multiple compilers/platforms. That might be wrong or too narrow. As far as Boost libraries are concerned, I think this is a non-issue. The code has to work with various compilers either at their least common conforming level or at various compiler specific alternatives.
I don't see how the flag actually could help unless you were developing only on MSVC and then trying to port to other platforms.
But I think this is exactly what is true for many developers, so the earlier the MS-only users get warning that they are in MS-only-land the better. I had hoped that /Za would achieve this.
So unless there are other views, I propose to change the 'Dealing with warnings guidelines' to warn that the option is 'definitely dodgy'. (mainly by a link to this helpful post).
Although /Za might help a little during development, loading and testing on the trunk remains the definitive test of portability.
I am moving towards Michael's viewpoint, but I'd like more views on this before I make a change. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com