On 19/11/2018 19:20, Brian Kuhl via Boost wrote:
I'd like to confirm the guidance on Warnings I find here https://svn.boost.org/trac10/wiki/Guidelines/WarningsGuidelines is still considered current?
More or less - the advice could use updating, and each new compiler release brings new warnings, some busy-body some not, so it's a constant struggle to catch up. Speaking for myself I'm happy to fix or suppress (as appropriate) warnings in my stuff, so bring on the PR's I would say ;) Of course you may have to nag the community maintenance team if you're submitting PR's against unmaintained libraries. HTH, John.
context ...
At Wind River we are in the process of working with Boost 1.68 and VxWorks 7 (with Dinkum 7.00 with and Clang 6.0 for ARM and IA boards and GCC 8.1 for PowerPC ) with the hope of bundling Boost with our product.
Many of our customers make certified systems ( Planes, Trains, Medical Equipment, Factory Automation, etc. ) and the trend in theses industries is to be pedantic about eliminating all compiler warnings.
While we have not traditionally required zero warnings in open source code shipped with our product, there is pressure on us to move in that direction, and as result we will probably be contributing pull requests specifically to fix or suppress compiler warnings over the coming years.
I'd like to establish clear guidelines for my team as to what is an appropriate "coding standard" for Boost in regards to compiler warnings. While it is simple to say, everything displayed by -Wall, in practice there are many edge cases, e.g. is an unused parameter acceptable in test code? So I'd like to get the maintainers guidance.
Many thanks
Brian Kuhl
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus