On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Klimpel<Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com> wrote:
Michael Fawcett wrote:
Well, it's right. That's a constant conditional expression.
You're trying to tease me, right?
No, sorry if I came off that way.
You can either ignore the warning or put it in a template specialization which would get rid of the warning. Is it defined in the standard that the conditional will *always* get optimized away? If it isn't, that seems like a reasonable warning.
MSVC explicitly says whether a warning is just a performance warning, and C4127 is not a performance warning. It is a warning to inform the programmer about a possible mistake (IIRC, if(true) or if(false) don't trigger this warning). I don't understand what you mean by "... or put it in a template specialization which would get rid of the warning". Are you suggesting I should try to emulate the optimizer of the compiler, even if this would imply substantial code duplication?
I agree it's annoying. I'm curious (in the sense that I have no clue what the answer is)...does MSVC generate the code in the else block when it gives that warning?
I don't think that works with templates. Typically to silence errors in template code, the user must put those pragmas around the point of instantiation.
I hope you're joking.
I wish. That's how it works with MSVC though.
The warnings I saw were int->bool, bool->int conversions, unused parameters, and struct now seen as class.
I agree some warnings are nonsense, but there are some cases (just mentioned) that should be silenced by proper code changes.
Agreed.
I don't think a strict "no warning" policy needs to be in place, which I think is what Emil is against, but I think Boost should strive to have as few as possible and there's too much low hanging fruit waiting to be picked currently (causing lots of noise).
Agreed.
I think everyone can agree that Boost should strive for as few warnings as possible, but forcing all libraries to be warning free on all compilers is close to impossible. --Michael Fawcett