[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost
Subject:    Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(
From:       "Jonathan Franklin" <franklin.jonathan () gmail ! com>
Date:       2007-05-05 2:14:42
Message-ID: a47b0c990705041914h24f14b95re17d49b69b55ed55 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 5/4/07, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
>
>
> on Wed May 02 2007, "Jonathan Franklin" <franklin.jonathan-AT-gmail.com>
> wrote:
> ...

> This is certainly the case with the MS compiler, who even at lower warning
> > levels tends to make spurious comments about your code (not really
> warnings
> > at all).
>
> At least it gives me the #pragmas I need to silence them.


Indeed.  It's a shame that gcc doesn't provide a good 'prama disable'.

> However with gcc (and possibly other compilers), building w/ -Wall
> > -Werror is tenable, and is usually the Right Thing.  We have done
> > this on the last several (extremely large) projects I have worked
> > on.
>
> In my experience it's the Right Thing for certain common coding
> styles, but completely wrong for others.


Hence 'usually'.  My coding style apparently falls amongst the common.

For example, GCC has a
> warning about a derived class whose base doesn't have a virtual dtor.
> It's actually *impossible* (not just inefficient or convoluted) to
> implement is_polymorphic without generating that warning.


Interesting.  I'm obviously flaunting my ignorance, but I didn't realize
that inheriting from a class sans virtual dtor was ever a Good Thing.  I'll
have to read up on the issues WRT is_polymorphic.

Jon

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]