Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:47 AM, DE <satan66613@yandex.ru> wrote:
on 16.03.2010 at 10:25 Emil Dotchevski wrote :
I think that the solution is to disable such warnings in release builds. They serve no purpose other than to tell you that assert did what it was supposed to do in release.
MSVC has a similar warning, the one that says "removed unreachable code" which tells you that the optimizer deadstripped code that could not be executed anyway. How would you deal with that warning, add casts until the optimizer is sufficiently confused? :)
one smart man (whom i have reasons to trust) said once that code must compile with no warnings at the highest warning level i think this is especially true about code that you give away (libs, etc.)
If we assume that the purpose of a warning message is to help writing "good" code, then we must agree that warnings that leads to "bad" code should be disabled. Otherwise, "fixing" warnings becomes a fetish.
I remember we've been discussing this topic a while ago... Agreed. However, the problem is that assessing what changes belongs to fetish and what means actually a fix is hard and requires experience. Thus, if I will stick to "fetish, no fix" policy, as unexperienced programmer, I can easily overlook serious issues. It's not black and white, rather a gray area. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot http://mateusz.loskot.net