-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Brian Kuhl via Boost Sent: 19 November 2018 19:21 To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Brian Kuhl Subject: [boost] Current Guidance on Compiler Warnings?
I'd like to confirm the guidance on Warnings I find here https://svn.boost.org/trac10/wiki/Guidelines/WarningsGuidelines is still considered current?
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.
This thread has been hijacked by some interesting (if inconclusive) discussions mainly bemoaning some deficiencies of C++. But have we answered your questions Brian? I am sure the we all would like to see Boost bundled with important packagers like Wind River to boost Boost's usage. Is there anything else we should be doing? (Even if we feel that hoops may not be that useful, it may still be worth trying to jump?) Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830