Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
However this will not address the issue at hand, which is that people who use higher warning levels will see tons of warnings. A better attitude is http://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html#faq35.
This attitude is a polite excuse with no practical rationale behind. One may ask, how they can make sure their code works with my compiler if I see number of warnings that suggest some dirty hacks around aliasing are used, so potential undefined behaviour is handing in the air.
Yes, but not all warnings are like that. Many warnings inform about tricky semantics or tricky side effects, [...]
True, but the zlib attitude is expressed in general manner and as such it rises questions and concerns. That's why I vote for "do not ignore warnings, but review them one by one", as I explained in my other post in this thread.
However, "never ignore" does not necessary mean always fix your code to silent warnings. It means that if warning is reported, it should be analysed what the complain is about and action should be taken: fix code or silent warning or ignore. Ignore after check is fine, as long as "never ignore warnings" approach is followed.
Fine, but this is not what the issue is about, I don't think. The problem is that there are companies that require -Wall -Werror or some such.
Sure. I doubt it's possible to fulfil coding standards of every user of Boost.
Otherwise, what you're describing sounds like common sense to me.
OK Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org